Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 21, 2026
How to Study Placebo Responses in Motion Sickness with a Rotation Chair Paradigm in Healthy Participants
Published on: December 14, 2014
Individualized outcome feedback produces voluntary antiemetic prescribing practice changes
F J Overdyk1, S C Harvey, D Baldwin
1Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425-2207, USA.
Study Objective:
To determine the impact of individualized outcome feedback on antiemetic prescribing practices and compare outcomes of a cost-effective, standardized antiemetic protocol (PROT) to that of customized antiemetic therapy (NONPROT).
Design:
Prospective, observational study with randomized component.
Setting:
Postanesthesia care unit (PACU) of an academic medical center.
Patients:
3027 consecutive ASA physical status I, II, and III patients receiving general anesthesia.
Interventions:
Patients were randomized to receive 0.625 mg droperidol or 4 mg ondansetron for postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) from a protocol, or received customized antiemetic therapy.
Measurements And Main Results:
Incidence of PACU PONV, selection of PROT versus NONPROT, patient satisfaction, and use of PONV prophylaxis were measured and indexed by an attending anesthesiologist in a monthly report for 4 months. Monthly expenditures for antiemetic therapy prior to, during, and after the study were collected. Literature on PONV outcomes, appropriate timing, and selection of PONV prophylaxis was distributed. The NONPROT group was slightly older than the PROT group; otherwise, demographics were similar between all groups. The incidence of PONV did not differ between the PROT and NONPROT groups (11% vs. 10%), and the incidence of PONV in patients receiving prophylaxis was higher in both groups (17% PROT vs. 15% NONPROT). Patients receiving ondansetron as a first-line drug required rescue therapy less often (5%) than those receiving droperidol (14%); however, patient satisfaction was indistinguishable among all groups. During the study, the use of prophylaxis decreased 47% without an increase in PONV, and PROT selection increased 54%.
Conclusions:
Individualized outcome feedback produced a 48% reduction in monthly expenditures for ondansetron and droperidol, which was sustained after the study. Patients satisfaction between ondansetron 4 mg and droperidol 0.625 mg given in the PACU did not differ in spite of a slightly greater efficacy of ondansetron as a first-line drug.
Related Concept Videos
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...
01:27Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's cancer...
01:27Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
01:28Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists
01:29Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Dopamine Receptor Antagonists
Phenothiazines, such as prochlorperazine...
01:24Dosage Regimen: Individualization