Utilization of a poison control center by critical access hospitals—one state’s experience

Abstract

Purpose Critical access hospitals (CAH) are an important source of exposures for poison control centers (PCC), yet there is a paucity of literature on how these calls differ from larger, more urban hospitals (UH). This study aimed to compare call characteristics from CAH and UH received by a regional PCC. Methods This retrospective chart review used the Toxicall® database of the Kansas PCC. All cases involving calls from a health care facility from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Cases were then identified as either from a CAH or from one of the four largest UH in Kansas for comparison. CAH were defined using the criteria from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. All information was de-identified in REDCAPS and analyzed in Microsoft Excel. Findings A total of 12,469 unique patient cases were identified, including 6392 CAH and 6077 UH cases. Patients at UH were more likely to have longer duration of medical effects and experience more severe medical effects. Significant differences in the unique exposures, rates of intentional overdose, routes, and number of exposures were found. Patients at CAH were more likely to receive activated charcoal, flumazenil, and be transferred to another healthcare facility, but were less likely to have been referred by the PCC, need an ICU admission, or require consultation with a toxicologist. Conclusions PCC calls from CAHs were common and resulted in significant differences when compared to UH calls. Future research is warranted to optimize PCC services for rural hospitals.