Intravenous (IV) opioid titration is an accepted method of relieving acute renal colic. Studies have shown that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are also effective in this setting. Our objective was to compare single-dose ketorolac and titrated meperidine, both administered intravenously, with respect to speed and degree of analgesia, adverse effects and functional status. Our primary hypothesis was that these agents provide equivalent analgesia within 60 minutes. Our secondary hypotheses were that ketorolac-treated patients would experience fewer adverse effects and would be better able to resume usual activity.

This was a multicentre, double-blind randomized equivalence trial in a convenience sample of patients age 18–65 with moderate or severe renal colic, documented by intravenous pyelogram, ultrasound or stone passage. Meperidine-treated patients received 50 mg IV meperidine at 0 minutes, then 25–50 mg every 15 minutes as needed for ongoing pain. Ketorolac-treated patients received 30 mg IV ketorolac at 0 minutes and placebo injections every 15 minutes as needed. Pain levels and adverse effects were assessed every 15 minutes, and functional status was evaluated at 60 minutes. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with mild or no pain at 60 minutes.

Overall, 49 of 77 meperidine-treated patients (64%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 53%–75%) and 47 of 65 ketorolac-treated patients (72%; 95% CI, 61%–83%) achieved successful pain relief at 60 minutes (p value for equivalence = 0.002). Ten percent of meperidine-treated patients and 44% of ketorolac-treated patients were able to resume usual activity at 60 minutes (p = 0.001).

In the doses studied, single-dose IV ketorolac is as effective as titrated IV meperidine for the relief of acute renal colic and causes less functional impairment.

To determine the prevalence of influenza vaccination in patients who present to the emergency department (ED) who meet current guidelines for its use. To evaluate the feasibility of an ED-based program to provide influenza vaccine to at-risk patients.

A survey of ED patients and their family physicians, using a convenience sample.

Consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department of Prince George Regional Hospital, Prince George, BC, a regional hospital in Northern British Columbia, during designated shifts between Nov. 6, 1997, and Dec. 10, 1997.

Age, gender, family physician (FP), eligibility for influenza vaccine, vaccination status, willingness to receive vaccine in the ED, and FP methods for ensuring use of influenza vaccine.

935 patients were interviewed; 816 met study eligibility criteria. Of 214 patients eligible for influenza vaccine, 113 (52.8%) had not been vaccinated. Fifty-three (46.9%) agreed to vaccination, and 49 were vaccinated in the ED. A survey of the patients’ FPs revealed that 85% used callback lists, but that only 49% of vaccine-eligible patients identified in the study were on a callback list. Positive associations were found between the presence of an FP and the likelihood of having been vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 8.8), being on a callback list and having been vaccinated (OR = 4.1), and age >64 and being on a callback list (OR = 2.1).

Up to 50% of patients eligible for influenza vaccine are not adequately immunized. Administering influenza vaccine in the ED is acceptable to patients and should reduce influenza rates in at-risk populations. There is a role for administering influenza vaccine in the ED.

To estimate the level of knowledge that Canadian emergency physicians have of the costs of common diagnostic tests and interventions in the emergency department (ED).

In a cross-sectional survey, 75 emergency physicians from 7 community and academic EDs were asked to estimate the cost of 60 of the most commonly ordered imaging modalities, laboratory tests and pharmaceuticals. Their estimates were compared to actual costs obtained from hospital finance departments. For each test or pharmaceutical, physician error was calculated as a percentage of the actual value, using the formula [(actual – estimated) / actual] × 100. For each item, the proportion of responses that were underestimates, the proportion that were overestimates and the proportion that were accurate within 25% were reported.

Mean error of the physicians’ estimates was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%–45%) for imaging studies, 153% (95% CI, 128%–178%) for lab investigations, and 218% (95% CI, 179%–257%) for pharmaceutical costs. Rates of underestimation vs. overestimation were 68% vs. 16% for imaging modalities, 23% vs. 56% for laboratory tests, and 21% vs. 64% for pharmaceuticals.

Emergency physicians have a limited knowledge of the costs of the tests and interventions they use on a daily basis. They tend to overestimate lab and pharmaceutical costs but underestimate imaging costs. Cost-awareness programs for emergency physicians are most likely to be beneficial if they focus on imaging modalities.