We had a discussion this morning at my base.
I was severly outnumbered, soooo here was the situation.
Unresponsive hypoglycemic pt with possible head trauma/CVA.
Protocal says to jump straight to D50, and that was the general concinsis of the group at the base.
my arguement was :
However, due to head trauma/CVA why would I jump to D50 instead of administering 1.0mg of glucagon first to try and get glycogen released. If it does not work, used the D50 kind of as a last resort and titrate the administration. I try to make it a common practice to treat pt not protocal. Protocal is a guideline not a treatment IMHO.
I understand that the brain needs its glucose needs to be treated ASAP and am not against giving the D50, but why not try all other aspects first.
Their argument was:
I could not prove that their was a head bleed......OK? So why do I need to prove it, if I have signs and symptoms indicitive of a "head bleed." And there was no garentee that the glucagon was going to do the trick.
I was a bit concerned when other medics were saying stuff like, "I could care less about signs and symptoms of ICP or of head trauma when giving D50."
Sooo, I guess I did that rant to ask this.
What is the deal, am I wrong bucking my FTP/Auditor (he was involved in the debate and could make life a bit hard for me if he wanted) over this issue?
I am a bit interesed to hear you responses
TKS in advance,
JPB
I was severly outnumbered, soooo here was the situation.
Unresponsive hypoglycemic pt with possible head trauma/CVA.
Protocal says to jump straight to D50, and that was the general concinsis of the group at the base.
my arguement was :
However, due to head trauma/CVA why would I jump to D50 instead of administering 1.0mg of glucagon first to try and get glycogen released. If it does not work, used the D50 kind of as a last resort and titrate the administration. I try to make it a common practice to treat pt not protocal. Protocal is a guideline not a treatment IMHO.
I understand that the brain needs its glucose needs to be treated ASAP and am not against giving the D50, but why not try all other aspects first.
Their argument was:
I could not prove that their was a head bleed......OK? So why do I need to prove it, if I have signs and symptoms indicitive of a "head bleed." And there was no garentee that the glucagon was going to do the trick.
I was a bit concerned when other medics were saying stuff like, "I could care less about signs and symptoms of ICP or of head trauma when giving D50."
Sooo, I guess I did that rant to ask this.
What is the deal, am I wrong bucking my FTP/Auditor (he was involved in the debate and could make life a bit hard for me if he wanted) over this issue?
I am a bit interesed to hear you responses
TKS in advance,
JPB