Management of acute agitation in Hong Kong and comparisons with Australasia

Background Little is known about the use of sedation drugs for the management of acute agitation in Hong Kong's Accident and Emergency Departments (AEDs) and how it compares with Australasian practice. Objective The aim of this study was to determine drug preferences, clinicians' perceived confidence in management, barriers/gaps in training and perceived usefulness of existing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Hong Kong. Method A validated questionnaire was used, with case vignettes typical of patients presenting to AEDs with acute agitation. The questionnaire was distributed by hand to all trainees and fellows of the Hong Kong College of Emergency Medicine (HKCEM). Two reminders were sent. Results Of 483 HKCEM members, 280 (58.0% [95% CI 53.5–62.3]) responded. For monotherapy, 46.8% (95% CI 41.0–52.6) of respondents chose haloperidol to manage the undifferentiated patient, followed by midazolam (33.9%, 95% CI 28.6–39.7) and diazepam (13.9%, 95% CI 10.4–18.5). Most respondents (83.6%, 95% CI 78.8–87.5) would not administer combination therapy. Respondents were confident in managing agitation overall. The lack of local/institutional CPGs (55.7%, 95% CI 49.9–61.4) was perceived as an important barrier. Institutional guidelines were considered the most useful CPGs (66.4%, 95% CI 60.7–71.7). Most respondents (72.9%, 95% CI 67.4–77.7) perceived a HKCEM endorsed CPG would be useful. Conclusion Haloperidol and benzodiazepines are frequently used as monotherapy for the management of acute agitation in Hong Kong's AEDs. Management in Hong Kong differs from Australasian practice in that combination therapy is less common and clinicians' choice of sedation drugs are less variable overall. Results suggest that future work on CPG development and training regarding the safe use of combination therapy would be well received.