PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “POISONING”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

The use of poison prevention and education strategies to enhance the awareness of the poison information center and to prevent accidental pediatric poisonings.

Poison information centers have traditionally served two major functions: the dissemination of poison information and poison prevention education. These functions facilitate the ultimate missions of the poison information centers which are to prevent accidental poisonings and to decrease morbidity and mortality associated with toxic exposures. Education must be directed at the potential and actual consumers of poison information centers services to prevent poisonings and to create awareness of how to use the poison information centers in the event of accidental or intentional poisoning. The target population can be identified from poison center statistics generated by the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System which define patient and caller demographics. Analysis of American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System for ten years was used to identify the ten most common and ten most lethal poisons. This information indicates the most appropriate topics for education. These data also provide direction regarding poison center penetrance into specific geographic regions and identifies special needs of those individuals. Poison information centers are very costly to operate and the utilization of epidemiologic data can help to direct education efforts in the most cost-effective fashion.

Child, Preschool↗
PubMed1996

State of the national's poison centers: 1995 American Association of Poison Control Centers Survey of US Poison Centers.

The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) 1995 annual survey is summarized. A decline in the total number of poison centers was noted (from 104 in 1991 to 83 in 1995). The 83 US poison centers handled 2,431, 599 human exposure cases. Certified centers (44) served 63.1% of the US population, handled 72.5% of all poison exposures handled by poison centers nationally, and achieved higher utilization rates within their regions (10.9 vs 7.4 human exposure cases handled/1,000 population). Certified centers had superior staff credentials as measured, by passing the certification examinations for specialists in poison information or board certification for medical and managing directors. Funding for poison centers in 1995 to-total $74.6 million, although this funding level was recognized to be inadequate as only 63.1% of the population was served by certified centers and utilization of poison centers was not optimal. The annual cost of covering the entire US with adequate poison control services (meeting AAPCC certification standards and with utilization at a level of 15 human exposures per thousand population) is estimated at $120 million. Funding difficulties were prevalent. Thirty-five centers indicated that closure had been a real threat at least once in the previous 5 years. Analysis of cost per human exposure case by center volume demonstrated that economies of scale were achieved when a center handled at least 20,000 to 30,000 human exposure calls/year. Increasing human exposure volume beyond 30,000/year did not lead to a reduction in the average cost per human exposure case.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1981

Recognizing the Toxicodendrons (poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac).

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are now classified in the genus Toxicodendron which is readily distinguished from Rhus. In the United States, there are two species of poison oak, Toxicodendron diversilobum (western poison oak) and Toxicodendron toxicarium (eastern poison oak). There are also two species of poison ivy, Toxicodendron rydbergii, a nonclimbing subshrub, and Toxicodendron radicans, which may be either a shrub or a climbing vine. There are nine subspecies of T. radicans, six of which are found in the United States. One species of poison sumac, Toxicodendron vernix, occurs in the United States. Distinguishing features of these plants and characteristics that separate Toxicodendron from Rhus are outlined in the text and illustrated in color plates.

Plants, Toxic↗
PubMed1976

Suspected poisoning in children. Study of the incidence of true poisoning and poisoning scare in a defined population in North East Bristol.

The distinction between true and suspected poisoning in children has not been made clear in previous work on childhood poisoning. A study of suspected poisoning in children under 15 years of age in a defined population of North East Bristol from November 1970 to July 1973 carried out by the Health Education Council Medical Research Division included 53,000 child-years at risk. The number of suspected poisonings was 3-4/1000 population aged under 15 years per year, with a higher incidence in younger age groups. Detailed investigation of the circumstances of the accidents carried out by a multidisciplinary team showed that at least 65%, and possibly as many as 78% were poisoning scares and not true poisoning. The evidence used by the casualty doctor and by the parents to diagnose poisoning was explored, and in many cases was circumstantial. Children with fathers in nonmanual occupations were over-represented. This may reflect differences in patterns of utilization behaviour rather than true differences in incidence.

Accidents, Home↗
PubMed1998

Studies in acute iron poisoning. I. Desferrioxamine In the treatment of acute iron poisoning: clinical observations, experimental studies, and theoretical considerations, by Charles F. Whitten et al, Pediatrics, 1965;36:322-335; and Studies in acute iron poisoning. II. Further observations on desferrioxamine in the treatment of acute experimental iron poisoning, by Charles F. Whitten et al, Pediatrics, 1966;38:102-110.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1997

[Poisonous mushrooms, mushroom poisons and mushroom poisoning. A review].

Of 1,500 different types of Norwegian mushrooms, 60-100 are considered poisonous. Fatal intoxications occur very infrequently. Lack of knowledge of picking and preparing mushrooms and accidental or deliberate consumption are recognised causes of mushroom poisoning. Delayed onset of symptoms (> 5-6 hrs) indicates serious poisoning, and these patients must be admitted to hospital. Cytotoxic toxins (e.g. amatoxin, orellanin) cause serious damage to the visceral organs (liver, kidney) and require intensive treatment, including hemoperfusion. Neurotoxic toxins may cause dramatic, but less harmful peripheral or central symptoms affecting the peripheral and central nervous systems, including hallucinations. Some mushrooms cause gastroenteritis of low clinical significance within a few hours after consumption. Interaction between mushrooms and alcohol may lead to a disulfiram-like effect. Induced vomiting and activated charcoal are important initial therapeutic measures. The precise history of the patient and the collecting of mushroom remnants, including vomitus, may help to identify the particular mushroom. In Norway, the National Poison Information Centre may be contacted for further advice.

Humans↗
PubMed1993

Poisoning deaths not reported to the regional poison control center.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to characterize poisoning deaths in Rhode Island and to determine the incidence of poisoning deaths that are not reported to the regional poison center. DESIGN: The records of the state medical examiner were reviewed retrospectively for all toxin-related deaths from January 1986 through December 1989, and those deaths were compared with deaths recorded by the poison center during the same period. PARTICIPANTS: All patients whose deaths were due to a toxic substance and were recorded by either the state medical examiner's office or the regional poison center during the four-year study period. INTERVENTIONS: Age, sex, location of death, cause of death (both primary and secondary toxins were noted), manner of death (accidental, suicide, undetermined), and the circumstances surrounding the death were recorded for each victim. Medical examiner and poison center cases were matched and compared using a computerized data base program. RESULTS: During the study period, 369 deaths reported to the medical examiner were attributed to poisoning, while 45 poisoning deaths were recorded by the poison center. Of the deaths reported to the medical examiner, the most common reasons for lack of reporting to the poison center were that death occurred at a residence or patients were dead on arrival at the hospital and a toxin was not suspected until an autopsy was performed. Seventy-nine other poisoning victims arrived at the hospital alive with a suspected toxic exposure and hypothetically could have been reported to the poison center but were not. CONCLUSION: The medical examiner's office represents a significant source of statistics regarding poisoning deaths, the majority of toxic deaths not reported to the poison center are dead on arrival, and using deaths as the dependent measure, the poison center may be underutilized in severe poisoning cases.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

The nation's first poison control center: taking a stand against accidental childhood poisoning in Chicago.

Prior to the 1950's, there existed no formal system for poison prevention or treatment in the US. Estimates place the number of pediatric poisoning fatalities at over 400/y at that time. After World War II, urbanization and modern technological methods brought forth over 250,000 different brand name products on the market. Health care professionals presented with cases of acute poisoning usually had little knowledge of what ingredients were contained in these new products, making it difficult to treat these patients. In the 1930's, pharmacist Louis Gdalman established a poison information service at St Luke's hospital. Because of Gdalman's training in pharmacy and chemistry, physicians throughout Chicago and the US called on him in search of assistance. In the late 1940's, Gdalman began recording information on small cards, and developed a standard data collection from. By the 1950's he had established an extensive library on the management of acute and chronic poisonings. In 1948, a national effort to reduce the number of accidents in children was started by the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a committee was formed in Chicago to address this public safety need. In November, 1953, the poison center at Presbyterian-St Luke's Hospital was formally recognized, and the poison program model spread nationwide. As the number of poison centers grew, coordination was achieved through the National Clearing House for Poison Control Centers, founded in 1957, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers, created in 1958. By 1970, the number of poison centers in the US was reported to be 597. The need for large and better centers led to regional poison control centers. Other outgrowths were the formation of the National Poison Prevention Week Council, the enactment of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, development of "Mr. Yuk" and other symbols, and formation of the National Animal Poison Control Center. As a result, the number of children dying from accidental poisoning has dropped to under 50/y.

Chicago↗
PubMed1998

The prospective value of the IPCS/EC/EAPCCT poisoning severity score in cases of poisoning.

INTRODUCTION: The poisoning severity score is a four-point severity-classification scale, developed by the International Programme on Chemical Safety, the Commission of the European Union, and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists (IPCS/EC/EAPCCT), for the retrospective assessment of cases of poisoning reported to poisons information centers. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to test the validity of using the poisoning severity score obtained at initial referral to assess clinical severity and the likelihood of subsequent deterioration, to select cases for follow-up, and also to determine the need for referral to a clinical toxicologist. METHODS: The poisoning severity score was determined at the time of initial inquiry. Follow-up was then undertaken until either the patient was discharged from medical attention or died. A second poisoning severity score was then calculated taking note of the most severe features present after the initial inquiry. RESULTS: Of 718 consecutive telephone inquiries, 397 were given an initial poisoning severity score of 0 (no signs and symptoms), 225 a score of 1 (mild symptoms), 71 a score of 2 (moderate symptoms), and 25 a score of 3 (severe symptoms). Follow-up data are available only in 638 cases because the patient or referring doctor could not be traced in 80 instances. Of the 638 cases, 41 deteriorated; 31 of these were graded initially as poisoning severity score 0, four as 1, and six as 2. Five patients died (two with an initial score of 2 and three with an initial score of 3). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that it is useful to score telephone inquiries to a poisons information service at initial referral with the poisoning severity score. First, the poisoning severity score is helpful in assessing accurately the clinical severity and the likelihood of further deterioration. Second, the poisoning severity score is useful in determining the need for referral of the inquiry to a clinical toxicologist, thus ensuring that more serious and complicated cases of poisoning receive expert medical advice on management. Third, the poisoning severity score is helpful in selecting those cases which warrant follow-up for medical and epidemiological reasons.

Developing Countries↗
PubMed2000

Poisoning mortality in the United States: comparison of national mortality statistics and poison control center reports.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the distributions of age and poisoning categories for poisoning deaths are similar in death certificates as compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and US poison control centers as reported by the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS). METHODS: Data from both databases for 1994 were examined. Mortality data from NCHS were identified by applicable E-codes of the International Classification of Diseases-ninth revision (ICD-9). All fatalities described in the TESS report were coded to conform to the ICD-9 system. RESULTS: A total of 16,527 poisoning deaths were recorded by NCHS; 766 deaths were reported by TESS. For NCHS and TESS, respectively, the age distribution of unintentional drug poisonings (N=7,823; 155) and unintentional non-drug poisonings (N=1,234; 102) differed (P <.001), whereas those for intentional poisonings (N=5,320; 413) did not differ significantly. In the NCHS and TESS data sets, respectively, the relative distribution of death circumstances differed (P <.001) for unintentional drug poisonings (47% versus 20%), unintentional non-drug poisonings (8% versus 14%), intentional poisonings (32% versus 54%), and unknown or other circumstances (13% versus 12%). The distributions of poisoning circumstances and age categories were dependent on the data source (P <.001). There was no statistical agreement between the data sets in rankings of the 12 most frequent ICD-9 codes and toxins associated with poisoning deaths. CONCLUSION: Deaths reported in TESS represent 5% of the poisoning deaths tabulated by NCHS. Differences observed in the 2 data sets may lead to differing health policies to address poisoning hazards.

Accidents↗
PubMed1983

Effectiveness of a regional poison center in reducing excess emergency room visits for children's poisonings.

A study was done to assess the necessity of hospital care for poisoning episodes in children less than 5 years old and to evaluate the impact of a regional poison center on the use of emergency rooms for pediatric poisonings. Of the pediatric patients seen in emergency rooms for acute poisonings, 63% did not require the services of a hospital; 95% did not contact the regional poison center before going to the hospital. When all poisoning episodes were considered, the regional poison center was found to reduce significantly pediatric visits to emergency rooms. Of parents who did not call the poison center, 44% went to an emergency room whereas less than 1% of parents who called the poison center went to a hospital (P less than .001). Moreover, 28% of those who did not call made unnecessary visits to the hospital compared with only 0.5% of parents who called the poison center (P less than .001). A regional poison center was found to be an effective means of decreasing unnecessary hospital visits for pediatric poisonings. Regional poison centers, however, need to further their impact by addressing outreach efforts to parents who do not call poison centers, emergency rooms, and pediatricians.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2000

Characterization of US poison centers: a 1998 survey conducted by the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

A 1998 survey of all 73 US poison centers, including 52 certified centers and 21 noncertified centers, is presented. Despite a continued decline of the number of poison centers operating in the US, the volume of calls has steadily increased. In 1997 these centers handled 3.65 million telephone consultations, including 2,475,010 human poison exposure cases, 134,646 animal poison exposures, and 1,036,148 information calls. Nearly the entire US population had access to a poison center (99.9%), although only 78.5% of the US population was served by a certified center. Certified poison centers handled 83.6% of human poison exposure cases reported to US poison centers. Calls to certified centers were twice as likely to be handled by staff who were certified as specialists in poison information. On average, poison center utilization was 9.2 human exposure consultations/1,000 population. Total national poison center expenses approached $81 million. The average cost/human exposure case was $33.30 in certified centers, a substantial savings when compared with the alternative of emergency department management. State governments provided the single largest source of funding. Poison center funding remains unstable, with 41% of centers reporting a possible or definite budget reduction anticipated in the next budget year. In the past 5 y, 47.9% of centers faced threat of closure. Center certification and increased public education activity, especially the distribution of poison prevention materials and number of media contacts, were associated with greater utilization of the poison center in the region served.

Computers↗
PubMed1998

Poisoning severity score. Grading of acute poisoning.

BACKGROUND: A standardized and generally applicable scheme for grading the severity of poisoning allows a qualitative evaluation of morbidity and facilitates comparability of data. Working from a simple grading scale proposed by the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, a Poisoning Severity Score has been developed jointly with the International Programme on Chemical Safety and the European Commission. METHODS: The Poisoning Severity Score has been elaborated, tested, and gradually revised during a project running 1991-1994. Fourteen poisons centers from various countries have participated. Each center independently graded 371 cases of acute poisoning by ten different toxic agents. The data were then analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The concordance in grading the severity increased during the study period, and in the last phase there was an acceptable concordance among centers in 80% or more of the cases. Given the condition and quality of the original case records, this result was considered satisfactory and agreement was reached on the scoring scheme presented here. The Poisoning Severity Score grades severity as (0) none, (1) minor, (2) moderate, (3) severe, and (4) fatal poisoning. It is intended to be an overall evaluation of the case, taking into account the most severe clinical features. Use of the Poisoning Severity Score normally requires a follow-up of all cases, but may be used on admission or other times during the course of poisoning if this is clearly stated when data are presented. CONCLUSIONS: A Poisoning Severity Score has been developed and found applicable for grading the severity of poisoning. It is foreseen that the Poisoning Severity Score will meet the expectations and be used in practice, but its future use and evaluation may result in some further revision and refinement.

Acute Disease↗