Objectives: The primary objectives were to assess whether electronically delivered prescriptions lead to reduced pharmacy wait time, improved patient satisfaction, and improved compliance with prescriptions. Secondary objectives included determining other reasons for noncompliance and if there was an association between prescription noncompliance and subsequent physician and emergency department (ED) visits.Methods: In this prospective study, patients discharged from the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center ED with prescriptions for nonnarcotic medications were randomized to a control group who were discharged with standard written prescriptions or an intervention group who had their prescriptions electronically delivered to the pharmacy of their choice. All study participants were contacted 7 to 31 days after ED discharge for a structured telephone interview.Results: Of the 454 patients enrolled, follow-up was successful for 224 patients (52.4%). Twenty-eight patients did not fill their prescriptions (12.5% noncompliance rate). The top three reasons patients stated for not picking up their medications were perceiving their prescription as unnecessary (n = 11), medication affordability (n = 5), and lack of time (n = 4). There was no difference in primary prescription noncompliance between the two study groups (p = 0.58). However, electronically delivered prescriptions significantly reduced the median pharmacy wait time, from 15 to 0 minutes (p < 0.001), and improved patient satisfaction at the pharmacy (p = 0.034). Neither subsequent physician nor ED visits were increased by primary prescription noncompliance.Conclusions: Electronically delivered prescriptions significantly minimized pharmacy wait time and improved patient satisfaction at the pharmacy, but did not improve primary compliance with prescriptions.

Objective To compare the efficacy of buccally absorbed prochlorperazine (BAP) to intravenous prochlorperazine (IVP) for the abortive treatment of migraine headaches. Methods Randomized double‐blind trial. Eighty subjects aged 18‐65 presenting with migraines to the ED of a safety‐net, urban hospital. Subjects were randomized to receive either 6 mg BAP plus 2.25 mL saline IV placebo or 10 mg IVP and buccally absorbed saccharine pill placebo. A 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain, nausea, and sedation. Comparisons between groups were analyzed by the Mann‐Whitney U test or Fisher’s exact test. Results Eighty subjects were recruited from November 2016 to December 2017; 79 completed the study. Demographics: 60 women and 19 men with a mean age of 38 ± 12.2 years. Initial mean VAS pain scores were similar between groups (BAP: 78.5 ± 19.9 mm vs IVP: 76.9 ± 19.5 mm). The improvement in mean VAS pain scores over 60 minutes for the BAP group was not significantly different from the IVP group (−54.9 ± 29.7 mm vs −66.7 ± 23.2 mm, respectively; P = 0.08). No significant differences were found in rates of nausea or sedation. Nine subjects in the BAP group required rescue treatment compared to 1 in the IVP group. Five subjects reported symptoms consistent with akathisia in the IVP group while no adverse effects were reported in the BAP group. Conclusion Buccally absorbed prochlorperazine (BAP) is an effective, non‐invasive treatment for migraine headaches when compared to intravenous prochlorperazine (IVP).

No abstract