Objective: To compare demographic and clinical characteristics of methamphetamine users and patients with other toxicology-related problems requiring medical intervention in a hospital emergency department (ED).
Design and setting: Prospective observational study of toxicology-related presentations to the ED of St Vincent’s Hospital (SVH), Sydney, an inner-city tertiary hospital, between 1 October and 31 December 2006.
Main outcome measures: Differences between methamphetamine-related and other toxicology-related presentations to the ED in relation to behaviour, mode of arrival, accompaniment, need for scheduling, location of drug use, intravenous drug use history, psychiatric history and demographic characteristics.
Results: During the study period there were 10 305 patient presentations to SVH ED; 449 (4%) were toxicology-related presentations, of which 100 (1% of total) were methamphetamine-related. Methamphetamine users were significantly more agitated, violent and aggressive than patients with other toxicology-related presentations and significantly less alert, communicative and cooperative (P < 0.001); 24% of methamphetamine users (24/100) arrived with police accompaniment versus 9% of other toxicology patients (33/349) (P < 0.001). Methamphetamine users were more likely to have a history of intravenous drug use and mental health problems (P < 0.001); 39% of methamphetamine presentations (39/100) required scheduling under the Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) compared with 19% of other toxicology-related presentations (67/349) (P < 0.001); 43% of methamphetamine-related presentations (43/100) involved drug use on the street compared with 24% of other toxicology-related presentations (83/349) (P < 0.001). Two-thirds of all methamphetamine users were male, and the most common age group for both male and female users was 26–30 years. The mean age and sex distribution of patients with other toxicology-related presentations were not significantly different. Among methamphetamine users, 27% of women (9/33) were in the 21–25-year age group compared with 10% (7/67) of men (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: There were significant differences between methamphetamine-related and other toxicology-related presentations to SVH ED. Methamphetamine users were more aggressive, violent and dangerous, and thus more likely to pose a risk to health personnel and others. Methamphetamine appeared to be used consistently, rather than as an episodic “party drug”.
- 1. Stafford J, Degenhardt L, Dunn M, et al. Australian trends in ecstasy and related drug markets 2005: findings from the Party Drugs Initiative (PDI). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 2005. http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/Mono_1/$file/Mono.58.pdf (accessed Sep 2007).
- 2. McKetin R, McLaren J. The methamphetamine situation in Australia: a review of routine data sources. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 2004. http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/TR_8/$file/TR.172.pdf (accessed Sep 2007).
- 3. Australian Crime Commission. Illicit drug data report 2004–2005. Canberra: ACC, 2006. http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/html/pg_iddr2004_05.html (accessed Sep 2007).
- 4. Barr AM, Panenka WJ, MacEwan W, et al. The need for speed: an update on methamphetamine addiction. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2006; 31: 301-313.
- 5. Richards JR, Bretz SW, Johnson EB, et al. Methamphetamine abuse and emergency department utlilization. West J Med 1999; 170: 198-202.
- 6. Gray S, Fatovich DM, McCoubri D, Daly FS. Amphetamine-related presentations to an inner city tertiary emergency department: a prospective evaluation. Med J Aust 2007; 186: 336-339. <MJA full text>
- 7. Whyte I. Introduction: research in clinical toxicology — the value of high quality data. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2002; 40: 211-212.
- 8. Whyte I, Buckley N, Dawson A. Data collection in clinical toxicology: are there too many variables? J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2002; 40: 223-230.
- 9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Drug Strategy Household Survey. Canberra: AIHW, 2004. (AIHW Cat. No. PHE 66.) http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/ndshsdf04/ndshsdf04-c00.pdf (accessed Sep 2007).
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.