BITES study: A qualitative analysis among emergency medicine physicians on snake envenomation management practices

Antivenom is currently considered standard treatment across the full spectrum of severity for snake envenomation in the United States. Although safe and effective antivenoms exist, their use in clinical practice is not universal. This study explored physicians' perceptions of antivenom use and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2022-01, Vol.17 (1), p.e0262215-e0262215
Hauptverfasser: Tupetz, Anna, Barcenas, Loren K, Phillips, Ashley J, Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig, Gerardo, Charles J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0262215
container_issue 1
container_start_page e0262215
container_title PloS one
container_volume 17
creator Tupetz, Anna
Barcenas, Loren K
Phillips, Ashley J
Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig
Gerardo, Charles J
description Antivenom is currently considered standard treatment across the full spectrum of severity for snake envenomation in the United States. Although safe and effective antivenoms exist, their use in clinical practice is not universal. This study explored physicians' perceptions of antivenom use and experience with snake envenomation treatment in order to identify factors that influence treatment decisions and willingness to administer. We conducted a qualitative study including in-depth interviews via online video conferencing with physicians practicing in emergency departments across the United States. Participants were selected based on purposive sampling methods. Data analysis followed inductive strategies, conducted by two researchers. The codebook and findings were discussed within the research team. Sixteen in-depth interviews with physicians from nine states across the US were conducted. The participants' specialties include emergency medicine (EM), pediatric EM, and toxicology. The experience of treating snakebites ranged from only didactic education to having treated over 100 cases. Emergent themes for this manuscript from the interview data included perceptions of antivenom, willingness to administer antivenom and influencing factors to antivenom usage. Overall, cost-related concerns were a major barrier to antivenom administration, especially in cases where the indications and effectiveness did not clearly outweigh the potential financial burden on the patient in non-life- or limb-threatening cases. The potential to decrease recovery time and long-term functional impairments was not commonly reported by participants as an indication for antivenom. In addition, level of exposure and perceived competence, based on prior education and clinical experience, further impacted the decision to treat. Resources such as Poison Center Call lines were well received and commonly used to guide the treatment plan. The need for better clinical guidelines and updated treatment algorithms with clinical and measurable indicators was stated to help the decision-making process, especially among those with low exposure to snake envenomation patients. A major barrier to physician use of antivenom is a concern about cost, cost transparency and cost-benefit for the patients. Those concerns, in addition to the varying degrees of awareness of potential long-term benefits, further influence inconsistent clinical treatment practices.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0262215
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2617748335</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A688962215</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_6a5beb10741e462490b3e584062445f8</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A688962215</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-218c27b5951cf8d70293b5635ce5890111247d95d8c5b75135bf8c97265115203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJw2MUfsRP3gLRUBVaqVIkWrpbjOFkvib21kxX775n9aLVBPSAfbI2feT0znkmS1xhNMc3xp6UfglPtdOWdmSLCCcHsSXKKBSUTThB9enQ-SV7EuESI0YLz58kJzYRglPDTJHyZ317epLEfqs15OkvvBtXaXvV2bVIF8ptoY6o675rUdCY0xulN2pnKautMulrAvbbKxdS7NDr126TGrY3zHUiAqQONBhxdn66C0r3VJr5MntWqjebVYT9Lfn69vL34Prm6_ja_mF1NNBeknxBcaJKXTDCs66LKERG0ZJwybVghEMaYZHklWFVoVuYMU1bWhRY54QxjBkmfJW_3uqvWR3koV5SE4zzPCkoZEPM9UXm1lKtgOxU20isrdwYfGqkCxNwayRUrTYlRnmGTcZIJVFKII0NwzlhdgNbnw2tDCfXRkHJQ7Uh0fOPsQjZ-LQuQRDgDgQ8HgeDvBhN72dmoTdsqZ_ywi7sglAiRA_ruH_Tx7A5UoyAB62oP7-qtqJzxohC7jgFq-ggFqzKd1dBbtQX7yOHjyAGY3vzpGzXEKOc3P_6fvf41Zt8fsQuj2n4RfTts-yiOwWwP6uBjDKZ-KDJGcjsa99WQ29GQh9EAtzfHH_TgdD8L9C9upgfp</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2617748335</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>BITES study: A qualitative analysis among emergency medicine physicians on snake envenomation management practices</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Tupetz, Anna ; Barcenas, Loren K ; Phillips, Ashley J ; Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig ; Gerardo, Charles J</creator><contributor>Watson, Bernadette</contributor><creatorcontrib>Tupetz, Anna ; Barcenas, Loren K ; Phillips, Ashley J ; Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig ; Gerardo, Charles J ; Watson, Bernadette</creatorcontrib><description>Antivenom is currently considered standard treatment across the full spectrum of severity for snake envenomation in the United States. Although safe and effective antivenoms exist, their use in clinical practice is not universal. This study explored physicians' perceptions of antivenom use and experience with snake envenomation treatment in order to identify factors that influence treatment decisions and willingness to administer. We conducted a qualitative study including in-depth interviews via online video conferencing with physicians practicing in emergency departments across the United States. Participants were selected based on purposive sampling methods. Data analysis followed inductive strategies, conducted by two researchers. The codebook and findings were discussed within the research team. Sixteen in-depth interviews with physicians from nine states across the US were conducted. The participants' specialties include emergency medicine (EM), pediatric EM, and toxicology. The experience of treating snakebites ranged from only didactic education to having treated over 100 cases. Emergent themes for this manuscript from the interview data included perceptions of antivenom, willingness to administer antivenom and influencing factors to antivenom usage. Overall, cost-related concerns were a major barrier to antivenom administration, especially in cases where the indications and effectiveness did not clearly outweigh the potential financial burden on the patient in non-life- or limb-threatening cases. The potential to decrease recovery time and long-term functional impairments was not commonly reported by participants as an indication for antivenom. In addition, level of exposure and perceived competence, based on prior education and clinical experience, further impacted the decision to treat. Resources such as Poison Center Call lines were well received and commonly used to guide the treatment plan. The need for better clinical guidelines and updated treatment algorithms with clinical and measurable indicators was stated to help the decision-making process, especially among those with low exposure to snake envenomation patients. A major barrier to physician use of antivenom is a concern about cost, cost transparency and cost-benefit for the patients. Those concerns, in addition to the varying degrees of awareness of potential long-term benefits, further influence inconsistent clinical treatment practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262215</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34995326</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Algorithms ; Animals ; Antivenins - administration &amp; dosage ; Antivenom ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Bites ; Care and treatment ; Data analysis ; Data collection ; Decision making ; Disability ; Education ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Emergency medicine ; Emergency Service, Hospital - standards ; Evaluation ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Female ; Health risks ; Health services ; Humans ; Interviews ; Male ; Medical care ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Patients ; Pediatrics ; People and Places ; Perceptions ; Physicians ; Physicians - psychology ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative research ; Quality management ; Recovery of function ; Recovery time ; Sampling methods ; Snake bites ; Snake Bites - drug therapy ; Snake Bites - etiology ; Social Sciences ; Surgery ; Toxicology ; Venom ; Venoms - adverse effects ; Videoconferencing</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-01, Vol.17 (1), p.e0262215-e0262215</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Tupetz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Tupetz et al 2022 Tupetz et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-218c27b5951cf8d70293b5635ce5890111247d95d8c5b75135bf8c97265115203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-218c27b5951cf8d70293b5635ce5890111247d95d8c5b75135bf8c97265115203</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4216-9253</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8741014/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8741014/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34995326$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Watson, Bernadette</contributor><creatorcontrib>Tupetz, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barcenas, Loren K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Ashley J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerardo, Charles J</creatorcontrib><title>BITES study: A qualitative analysis among emergency medicine physicians on snake envenomation management practices</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Antivenom is currently considered standard treatment across the full spectrum of severity for snake envenomation in the United States. Although safe and effective antivenoms exist, their use in clinical practice is not universal. This study explored physicians' perceptions of antivenom use and experience with snake envenomation treatment in order to identify factors that influence treatment decisions and willingness to administer. We conducted a qualitative study including in-depth interviews via online video conferencing with physicians practicing in emergency departments across the United States. Participants were selected based on purposive sampling methods. Data analysis followed inductive strategies, conducted by two researchers. The codebook and findings were discussed within the research team. Sixteen in-depth interviews with physicians from nine states across the US were conducted. The participants' specialties include emergency medicine (EM), pediatric EM, and toxicology. The experience of treating snakebites ranged from only didactic education to having treated over 100 cases. Emergent themes for this manuscript from the interview data included perceptions of antivenom, willingness to administer antivenom and influencing factors to antivenom usage. Overall, cost-related concerns were a major barrier to antivenom administration, especially in cases where the indications and effectiveness did not clearly outweigh the potential financial burden on the patient in non-life- or limb-threatening cases. The potential to decrease recovery time and long-term functional impairments was not commonly reported by participants as an indication for antivenom. In addition, level of exposure and perceived competence, based on prior education and clinical experience, further impacted the decision to treat. Resources such as Poison Center Call lines were well received and commonly used to guide the treatment plan. The need for better clinical guidelines and updated treatment algorithms with clinical and measurable indicators was stated to help the decision-making process, especially among those with low exposure to snake envenomation patients. A major barrier to physician use of antivenom is a concern about cost, cost transparency and cost-benefit for the patients. Those concerns, in addition to the varying degrees of awareness of potential long-term benefits, further influence inconsistent clinical treatment practices.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Antivenins - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Antivenom</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bites</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Emergency medicine</subject><subject>Emergency Service, Hospital - standards</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical care</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Physicians - psychology</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><subject>Recovery of function</subject><subject>Recovery time</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Snake bites</subject><subject>Snake Bites - drug therapy</subject><subject>Snake Bites - etiology</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>Venom</subject><subject>Venoms - adverse effects</subject><subject>Videoconferencing</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJw2MUfsRP3gLRUBVaqVIkWrpbjOFkvib21kxX775n9aLVBPSAfbI2feT0znkmS1xhNMc3xp6UfglPtdOWdmSLCCcHsSXKKBSUTThB9enQ-SV7EuESI0YLz58kJzYRglPDTJHyZ317epLEfqs15OkvvBtXaXvV2bVIF8ptoY6o675rUdCY0xulN2pnKautMulrAvbbKxdS7NDr126TGrY3zHUiAqQONBhxdn66C0r3VJr5MntWqjebVYT9Lfn69vL34Prm6_ja_mF1NNBeknxBcaJKXTDCs66LKERG0ZJwybVghEMaYZHklWFVoVuYMU1bWhRY54QxjBkmfJW_3uqvWR3koV5SE4zzPCkoZEPM9UXm1lKtgOxU20isrdwYfGqkCxNwayRUrTYlRnmGTcZIJVFKII0NwzlhdgNbnw2tDCfXRkHJQ7Uh0fOPsQjZ-LQuQRDgDgQ8HgeDvBhN72dmoTdsqZ_ywi7sglAiRA_ruH_Tx7A5UoyAB62oP7-qtqJzxohC7jgFq-ggFqzKd1dBbtQX7yOHjyAGY3vzpGzXEKOc3P_6fvf41Zt8fsQuj2n4RfTts-yiOwWwP6uBjDKZ-KDJGcjsa99WQ29GQh9EAtzfHH_TgdD8L9C9upgfp</recordid><startdate>20220107</startdate><enddate>20220107</enddate><creator>Tupetz, Anna</creator><creator>Barcenas, Loren K</creator><creator>Phillips, Ashley J</creator><creator>Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig</creator><creator>Gerardo, Charles J</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4216-9253</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220107</creationdate><title>BITES study: A qualitative analysis among emergency medicine physicians on snake envenomation management practices</title><author>Tupetz, Anna ; Barcenas, Loren K ; Phillips, Ashley J ; Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig ; Gerardo, Charles J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-218c27b5951cf8d70293b5635ce5890111247d95d8c5b75135bf8c97265115203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Antivenins - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Antivenom</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bites</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Emergency medicine</topic><topic>Emergency Service, Hospital - standards</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical care</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Physicians - psychology</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><topic>Recovery of function</topic><topic>Recovery time</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Snake bites</topic><topic>Snake Bites - drug therapy</topic><topic>Snake Bites - etiology</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>Venom</topic><topic>Venoms - adverse effects</topic><topic>Videoconferencing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tupetz, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barcenas, Loren K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Ashley J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerardo, Charles J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tupetz, Anna</au><au>Barcenas, Loren K</au><au>Phillips, Ashley J</au><au>Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig</au><au>Gerardo, Charles J</au><au>Watson, Bernadette</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>BITES study: A qualitative analysis among emergency medicine physicians on snake envenomation management practices</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2022-01-07</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e0262215</spage><epage>e0262215</epage><pages>e0262215-e0262215</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Antivenom is currently considered standard treatment across the full spectrum of severity for snake envenomation in the United States. Although safe and effective antivenoms exist, their use in clinical practice is not universal. This study explored physicians' perceptions of antivenom use and experience with snake envenomation treatment in order to identify factors that influence treatment decisions and willingness to administer. We conducted a qualitative study including in-depth interviews via online video conferencing with physicians practicing in emergency departments across the United States. Participants were selected based on purposive sampling methods. Data analysis followed inductive strategies, conducted by two researchers. The codebook and findings were discussed within the research team. Sixteen in-depth interviews with physicians from nine states across the US were conducted. The participants' specialties include emergency medicine (EM), pediatric EM, and toxicology. The experience of treating snakebites ranged from only didactic education to having treated over 100 cases. Emergent themes for this manuscript from the interview data included perceptions of antivenom, willingness to administer antivenom and influencing factors to antivenom usage. Overall, cost-related concerns were a major barrier to antivenom administration, especially in cases where the indications and effectiveness did not clearly outweigh the potential financial burden on the patient in non-life- or limb-threatening cases. The potential to decrease recovery time and long-term functional impairments was not commonly reported by participants as an indication for antivenom. In addition, level of exposure and perceived competence, based on prior education and clinical experience, further impacted the decision to treat. Resources such as Poison Center Call lines were well received and commonly used to guide the treatment plan. The need for better clinical guidelines and updated treatment algorithms with clinical and measurable indicators was stated to help the decision-making process, especially among those with low exposure to snake envenomation patients. A major barrier to physician use of antivenom is a concern about cost, cost transparency and cost-benefit for the patients. Those concerns, in addition to the varying degrees of awareness of potential long-term benefits, further influence inconsistent clinical treatment practices.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>34995326</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0262215</doi><tpages>e0262215</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4216-9253</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2022-01, Vol.17 (1), p.e0262215-e0262215
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2617748335
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Adult
Algorithms
Animals
Antivenins - administration & dosage
Antivenom
Biology and Life Sciences
Bites
Care and treatment
Data analysis
Data collection
Decision making
Disability
Education
Emergency medical care
Emergency medical services
Emergency medicine
Emergency Service, Hospital - standards
Evaluation
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Female
Health risks
Health services
Humans
Interviews
Male
Medical care
Medicine
Medicine and Health Sciences
Middle Aged
Patients
Pediatrics
People and Places
Perceptions
Physicians
Physicians - psychology
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative research
Quality management
Recovery of function
Recovery time
Sampling methods
Snake bites
Snake Bites - drug therapy
Snake Bites - etiology
Social Sciences
Surgery
Toxicology
Venom
Venoms - adverse effects
Videoconferencing
title BITES study: A qualitative analysis among emergency medicine physicians on snake envenomation management practices
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T17%3A57%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=BITES%20study:%20A%20qualitative%20analysis%20among%20emergency%20medicine%20physicians%20on%20snake%20envenomation%20management%20practices&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Tupetz,%20Anna&rft.date=2022-01-07&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e0262215&rft.epage=e0262215&rft.pages=e0262215-e0262215&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0262215&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA688962215%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2617748335&rft_id=info:pmid/34995326&rft_galeid=A688962215&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_6a5beb10741e462490b3e584062445f8&rfr_iscdi=true