|
|
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
The purpose of this study was to determine whether regional poison centers handle a particular poisoning situation better than nonregional centers do. Informed consent was obtained from 15 regional and 15 nonregional poison centers. A case involving salicylate ingestion by a three-year-old child was presented twice (one day call and one night call) to each center. Those answering the phone at the regional centers asked more information-gathering questions than did those at the nonregional centers (P less than 0.01) and were more proficient in their history taking (P less than 0.01). Nonregional centers did not consider the potentially toxic ingestion (220 mg per kilogram of body weight) important enough to treat or were not willing to handle the poisoning in one third of the calls. The nonregional centers recommended manual stimulation to induce emesis in 30 per cent of the calls, whereas none of the regional centers recommended this treatment. Four calls to the nonregional centers resulted in recommendations of inappropriate emetics--e.g., saltwater, raw eggs, or mustard water. The chance of obtaining incorrect recommendations for poisoning treatment from the nonregional centers was determined to be nine times greater than that from the regional centers. Indications of intention to follow up were twice as frequent among regional as among nonregional centers. These data strongly suggest that regional poison centers provide better and more consistent poison information than do nonregional centers.
This article has been cited by other articles:
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | HELP | beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |
Previous
