Trends in types of calls managed by U.S. poison centers 2000–2015

Abstract

Aim: The number of cases reported to poison centers has decreased since 2008 but there is evidence that the complexity of calls is increasing.

Objectives: The objectives are to evaluate national poison center data for trends in reason and how these changes effect management site, medical outcomes, and poison center workload.

Methods: Data regarding reason, age, management site, and medical outcome were extracted from annual reports of the National Poison Data System from 2000 to 2015. The proportion of cases by year were determined for unintentional and intentional exposures. Analysis of data from a single poison center from 2005 to 2015 compared the number of interactions between poison center staff and callers for unintentional versus intentional reasons.

Results: Trend analyses found that from 2000 to 2015 the percent of unintentional cases decreased (from 85.9 to 78.4%, p < .0001) and the percent of intentional cases increased (from 11.3 to 17.6%, p < .0001). Age distribution changed with a decrease in children <13 years of age and increase in adolescents and adults. In these latter two age groups, the proportion due to intentional exposure increased while unintentional declined. The distribution of management sites changed over the 16-year period, with a decrease in non-HCF cases and significant increase in percent of cases treated in a HCF. The frequencies of moderate effect, major effect, and death were significantly higher for intentional exposures than for unintentional exposures. Analysis of data entry notes from a single center showed that the mean number of notes per unintentional case (1.61 ± 0.08) was significantly different from the mean number of notes per intentional case (9.23 ± 0.68) (p < .0001).

Discussion: Poison centers are managing more intentional exposures and fewer unintentional exposures. Intentional exposures require more poison center staff expertise and time.

Conclusion: Looking only at poison center total call volume may not be an adequate method to gauge productivity.

Keywords:

• Poison control center
• workload
• toxicity
• human

Acknowledgements

We thank Larry Gonzales for his assistance with data retrieval.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no declarations of interest. The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC; http://www.aapcc.org/) maintains the national database of information logged by the country’s poison control centers (PCCs). Data are from self-reported calls: they reflect only information provided when the public or healthcare professionals report an actual or potential exposure to a substance (e.g., an ingestion, inhalation, or topical exposure, etc.), or request information/educational materials. Exposures do not necessarily represent a poisoning or overdose. The AAPCC is not able to completely verify the accuracy of every report made to member centers. Additional exposures may go unreported to PCCs and data referenced from the AAPCC should not be construed to represent the complete incidence of national exposures to any substance(s).