“One in four emergency department attendances are alcohol-related,”- what criteria...

23-09-2013 05:31PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The point is that you're hardly going to be playing football, falling around the place intoxicated. If you're walking down the path at night sober, there is very little chance that you will be knocked down. Now if you're falling out onto the road every few steps, or shouting up the road at mates, oblivious to traffic, then the liklihood of you getting injured obviously goes way up. I don't understand the amount of people posting in this thread who cant seem to grasp this concept...

I don't see why you have mentioned playing football while intoxicated I never suggested that at any point.

The likely hood of a person who doesn't play football breaking their arm is less than a person who does. the likely hood of someone who drinks a lot breaking their arm is greater than someone who is sober. One person is playing football for enjoyment and increasing their risk of injury, the other is drinking for enjoyment and increasing their risk of injury. Why should they be treated differently?

You have also missed my point on the getting hit by a car. I never said the person was waving in and out of the road or anything like that. Its very possible for a person who had been drinking to get hit by a car or get injured in a car accident or get beaten up etc etc through no fault of their own or the drink they had consumed and in all these cases it would be recorded as a drink related incident when in fact the drink they had taken made no difference whatsoever to the situation.

ciaran76 · 23-09-2013 05:34PM

If 1 in 4 are alcohol related what are the other 3 related to? Has anyone looked into that.
That means 3 out of 4 accidents are caused by non drinking assholes!!!! :eek:

23-09-2013 05:35PM

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

I don't see why you have mentioned playing football while intoxicated I never suggested that at any point.

The likely hood of a person who doesn't play football breaking their arm is less than a person who does. the likely hood of someone who drinks a lot breaking their arm is greater than someone who is sober. One person is playing football for enjoyment and increasing their risk of injury, the other is drinking for enjoyment and increasing their risk of injury. Why should they be treated differently?

You have also missed my point on the getting hit by a car. I never said the person was waving in and out of the road or anything like that. Its very possible for a person who had been drinking to get hit by a car or get injured in a car accident or get beaten up etc etc through no fault of their own or the drink they had consumed and in all these cases it would be recorded as a drink related incident when in fact the drink they had taken made no difference whatsoever to the situation.

So what exactly is the point you're trying to make? Are you saying that the report is wrong? Do you believe football is too dangerous?? I'm losing you, here.

up for anything · 23-09-2013 05:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Anyone know how this one works?

Having spent from 7.30pm to 2.00am in St Luke's A&E in Kilkenny and then to WRH A&E till the morning with my young son I realised that we were the only people in both packed A&Es who weren't there due to a drink related accident or incident.

ETA: I should have elaborated - there were twisted ankles due to women staggering while drunk and falling off their skyscrapers, lumps, bumps and cuts sustained in drunken fights, RTA where they were all drunk and more stuff like that. If those people hadn't been drinking we would have been the only people there.

23-09-2013 05:55PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So what exactly is the point you're trying to make? Are you saying that the report is wrong? Do you believe football is too dangerous?? I'm losing you, here.

The point I'm making is people are calling for alcohol tax to be increased, minimum pricing introduced, people charged for treatment if they have drink taken etc etc while its perfectly acceptable to engage in many other activities which often result in medical care being required such as most sports and outdoor activities for instance without any complaint that these people are costing tax payers money by engaging in risky behaviour.

By the way I'm a big fan of sport (watching more than taking part these days) so I'm not arguing against sport in anyway. I am against using a very dubious report with very little supporting evidence to further regulate an already over regulated and over priced industry and thus costing me more money to enjoy myself. I'm also arguing that even if injurys are drink related then, once you are not being violent, causing trouble in A&E etc then your injurys should be treated the same as anyone who presents in A&E with an injury.

blubloblu · 23-09-2013 05:56PM

This is the report:
Hope et al (2005). Alcohol and Injuries in the Accident and Emergency Department: A National perspective. HPU, Department of Health and Children.

Turtwig · 23-09-2013 06:03PM

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

I don't see why you have mentioned playing football while intoxicated I never suggested that at any point.

The likely hood of a person who doesn't play football breaking their arm is less than a person who does. the likely hood of someone who drinks a lot breaking their arm is greater than someone who is sober. One person is playing football for enjoyment and increasing their risk of injury, the other is drinking for enjoyment and increasing their risk of injury. Why should they be treated differently?

You have also missed my point on the getting hit by a car. I never said the person was waving in and out of the road or anything like that. Its very possible for a person who had been drinking to get hit by a car or get injured in a car accident or get beaten up etc etc through no fault of their own or the drink they had consumed and in all these cases it would be recorded as a drink related incident when in fact the drink they had taken made no difference whatsoever to the situation.

Aforementioned, Dept of Health and Children study. wrote:

Two-thirds (64%) of those who had alcohol-related injuries
reported that the accident/injury would not have happened if they had not
been drinking.

Now, this self reporting and assessment may not be entirely accurate but 64% is quite a significant number. These people feel that it was alcohol that was a major influence in their mishap.

The point you're missing is that in overall state costs there's a difference. A person who gets fractures playing football is still part of much smaller overall resource drain than people who get fractures when alcohol has been consumed. Now, the principles of this may not be fair or unfair. A good analogy is car insurance. The football fracturer is a woman in her mid twenties. The alcohol fracturer is a man aged 19. Both are driving the same car but the premiums, because of the associated risk groups are a lot higher for the males. On a similar principle the state or private health insurance would charge more to the person who belongs to the group where the most incidents occur. So suppose rock climbing incidents typically cost the state more than football incidents. Rock climbers may find themselves experiencing more punitive measures and incentives towards safer rock climbing than the footballers would. Depending on the political views of the nation those measures may come from the state or health insurance, or possibly both.

Son Of A Vidic · 23-09-2013 06:14PM

OP, I suggest you spend a weekend in any Accident and Emergency department and enlighten yourself.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 23-09-2013 06:26PM

River Thankful Tights wrote: »

In fairness if he is presenting at A&E with slit wrists there is more serious issues at play than drink. Yes he was drunk but it has to be taken in a different context when serious metal issues are obvious at play also.

Yes but he went to attack a nurse when he sobered up enough to realise he could no longer feel his fingers, would he have done it if he was sober?

23-09-2013 06:40PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yes but he went to attack a nurse when he sobered up enough to realise he could no longer feel his fingers, would he have done it if he was sober?

Having some limited experience of people with mental health issues it certainly wouldn't be unheard off for it to happen with no drink involved though obviously the drink would increase the chances.

I wasn't excusing the drink and having a parent and sister both working in hospitals id take this sort of thing very seriously however I don't think its fair to use this type of incident in a general debate on alcohol issues due to other underlying issues.

rubadub · 23-09-2013 07:07PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

OP, I suggest you spend a weekend in any Accident and Emergency department and enlighten yourself.

What good will that do him? He already said he was there on a weekend night.

Is staying 2 nights going to answer his actual question?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe the statistic, but I'm interested in how it's judged.

opiniated · 23-09-2013 07:31PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Have you ever been to an A&E in the evening during the weekend? People fight, fall and have accidents all the time. When they intoxicate themselves with a substance that suppresses the central nervous system, they're going to fall and have accidents a lot more. Now, we also know that (certain) people will fight. The problem is that a lot more people will fight when they're boozed up, who would never dream about throwing a punch at any other time in their lives.

Pop into your local A&E this weekend and you can do your own tally, sure.

All true.

Having said that, I'd question the statistics as well.
My reasoning is that alcohol consumed in the previous 6 hours appears to contribute to the results. Whereas that may be true for someone who has consumed three or four units of alcohol, it is less likely to be true for someone who has consumed one, and is therefore considered within the limits to drive safely, for example.

I'd be more confident in the statistic if it relied on levels of alcohol in the bloodstream, tbh.

Having said all that, I consider Arthurs Day to be a cynical marketing ploy, for which I have no sympathy, whatsoever.
I don't drink, either - so my observations are not made with a view to excusing excessive drinking, or trying to minimise the very real damage alcohol can cause to society.

I just like statistics to be based on clearly quantifiable facts.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-09-2013 01:29AM

blubloblu wrote: »

This is the report:
Hope et al (2005). Alcohol and Injuries in the Accident and Emergency Department: A National perspective. HPU, Department of Health and Children.

I got a nasty cut a while back that may or may not have needed a stitch. But since it was after six on a Saturday I just didn't bother going to A&E.

Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was measured, using the
Alco-Sensor III breathalyser, on patients who reported drinking prior to
2. Methodology
11
injury. The BAC was obtained as soon as possible after a patient had been
selected for the study and provided consent.

...
In total, 2500 patients, presenting at A & E Departments within 6 hours of
an injury, were invited to participate in the study. Of those invited to
participate, 84% gave consent and completed all the elements of the
interview, while 5% refused, a further 4% were too intoxicated to complete
the interview, 3% could not be located or left and 2% were too severely
injured (Table 1).

Patients presenting with injuries in the emergency room
between midnight and 6am were 16 times more likely to be related to
alcohol.

...
Repeat usage of the A & E services in Acute Hospitals was reported by one
in three of those in attendance for alcohol-related injuries, in comparison
to about one in ten among other patients injured

osarusan · 24-09-2013 05:02AM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The point is that you're hardly going to be playing football, falling around the place intoxicated. If you're walking down the path at night sober, there is very little chance that you will be knocked down. Now if you're falling out onto the road every few steps, or shouting up the road at mates, oblivious to traffic, then the liklihood of you getting injured obviously goes way up. I don't understand the amount of people posting in this thread who cant seem to grasp this concept...

i think that some of the people questioning the 1 in 4 statistic are wondering how it was arrived at.

To expand on your example, we can take two scenarios where people have been hit by a car.

In the first, the guy is plastered and staggers out into the road and gets hit.

In the second, the guy is walking home after a pint or two when a car driven by somebody who just spilled a cup of coffee on themselves mounts the footpath and hits them.

While the first is clearly brought about by the consumption of alcohol, the second isn't. Yet, from what we can see of the questionnaire, both injured parties would say that they had been drinking prior to the accident. So would both be considered alcohol-related incidents?

An earlier post highlighted that 64% of respondents felt that their consumption of alcohol had contributed to the incident. But is the 1 in 4 figure mentioned in the OP based on that 64%, or on the 100% of respondents?

gctest50 · 24-09-2013 10:07PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Still wondering why you didnt go to the GP for this.

sorry bit late getting back to you but anyway :

collapsed after bottle of coke - ambulance called

AudreyHepburn · 24-09-2013 10:17PM

I would have no problem at all believing those stats to be honest. The sooner this country stops hiding its head in the sand and accepts that it has a serious problem with drinking stemming from the whole 'pub culture' thing the better.

I would imagine some of those accounted for had simply drunk too much while others had been involved in fights or accidents as a result of being under the influence.

darkpagandeath · 24-09-2013 10:27PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I would have no problem at all believing those stats to be honest. The sooner this country stops hiding its head in the sand and accepts that it has a serious problem with drinking stemming from the whole 'pub culture' thing the better.

I would imagine some of those accounted for had simply drunk too much while others had been involved in fights or accidents as a result of being under the influence.

Ever been to Germany ? I believe they have massive beer halls and month long festivals devoted to drinking yet there never brought up as bad example. id wager they consume way more than us same with the Uk and many other countries.

AudreyHepburn · 24-09-2013 10:29PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ever been to Germany ? I believe they have massive beer halls and month long festivals devoted to drinking yet there never brought up as bad example. id wager they consume way more than us same with the Uk and many other countries.

Ok but that doesn't mean we don't have a serious problem.

Muahahaha · 25-09-2013 12:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think the OP is suggesting they are made up, but it's similar to the road safety add which states that X% of people seriously injured or killed in an RTA had alcohol in their systems - what it doesn't do is clarify whether alcohol was the cause, for example those statistics include passengers and their blood alcohol level has nothing to do with the cause of the crash etc.

So I understand the question that is being asked, they may be alcohol 'related' but was alcohol the cause?

Good point. Equally what has to be taken into account is those people admitted into A&E who might be there as the result of the actions of a person who was drinking, i.e. an assault or car accident, etc. In that incidence the victim hadn't been drinking but is in A&E because of someone who has. My guess is that these incidents are not recorded as 'alcohol related' but if you look at the incident itself alcohol is often the primary reason why it occurred yet the stats may not reflect this because the alcohol fuelled person does not present to A&E while their sober victims(s) do.

Turtwig · 25-09-2013 03:04PM

osarusan wrote: »

But is the 1 in 4 figure mentioned in the OP based on that 64%, or on the 100% of respondents?

The 1/4 figure is based on the 100%. However, there are two caveats. The first is that the 64% of people doesn't include the incidents that were categorised as "alcohol related" because another intoxicated person inflicted harm on another. They also are only self reported figures. People inclined to agree with alcohol being a significant factor in A&E incidences would be also more likely to say they believe Alcohol was the reason their own incidence occurred.

Our drinking culture means it's probably hard to say to the significant difference between "alcohol related" incidences and non alcohol related incidences means anything - too much noise to filter from. The thing is though it's not only in Ireland this trend is observed. Many countries in Europe, cities such as London and Berlin have observed similar trends. Couple that with the pronounced difference between the amount of people with higher blood alcohol levels and those with little to no BA levels experiencing incidents and there is reason to believe alcohol isn't just a correlation; it's a causative agent.

bill buchanan · 25-09-2013 04:21PM

As a former A+E doctor, i can tell you that 1 in 4 attendances AT LEAST are alcohol related. There is simply no argument against those stats.

25-09-2013 05:07PM

bill buchanan wrote: »

As a former A+E doctor, i can tell you that 1 in 4 attendances AT LEAST are alcohol related. There is simply no argument against those stats.

Cue the cries of disbelief..."Ah shure they all probably just had a bad pint."

rubadub · 25-09-2013 05:13PM

bill buchanan wrote: »

As a former A+E doctor, i can tell you that 1 in 4 attendances AT LEAST are alcohol related. There is simply no argument against those stats.

But you are making an argument against the stats there yourself!, inferring that it is probably higher.

Can you answer the OP's actual question though.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe the statistic, but I'm interested in how it's judged.

darkpagandeath · 25-09-2013 05:17PM

ok ok 1 in 4 are drink related 1 in whatever are smoking related .. Can we have a list of things you can go to the hospital for then that people wont complain about ? Im guessing it ok to half kill myself doing some extreme sport and then go to hospital as I was not drunk when I put my life I clear danger ?

25-09-2013 06:21PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

ok ok 1 in 4 are drink related 1 in whatever are smoking related .. Can we have a list of things you can go to the hospital for then that people wont complain about ? Im guessing it ok to half kill myself doing some extreme sport and then go to hospital as I was not drunk when I put my life I clear danger ?

The point is that people are getting overly drunk and doing stupid things like falling over and fighting, purely because they are drunk. Seriously, have any of the doubters been in an A&E on a weekend night? I have...hell, I was even there after falling over drunk and busting my head open, so it's not like I'm looking down on others who are finding themselves in that situation.

I just don't get where the disbelief comes from. Do none of you have friends or relatives who've ended up in hospital on a random evening thanks to their overindulgence?

darkpagandeath · 25-09-2013 07:47PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The point is that people are getting overly drunk and doing stupid things like falling over and fighting, purely because they are drunk. Seriously, have any of the doubters been in an A&E on a weekend night? I have...hell, I was even there after falling over drunk and busting my head open, so it's not like I'm looking down on others who are finding themselves in that situation.

I just don't get where the disbelief comes from. Do none of you have friends or relatives who've ended up in hospital on a random evening thanks to their overindulgence?

If you look at what i posted i was asking what are we allowed to go to hospital for that people will not find something about it to complain about ? it's called being part of a caring society if some people had there way as apparently it's there tax money. We would all pay to go to hospital unless you were hit by say a tree branch. All people are supposed to be treated equally yet on here some are more equal than others. You know in wartime most medical staff from apposing sides would treat the opposing troops as that's what doctors do its the right humane thing and not just leave them there to die.

rubadub · 25-09-2013 08:25PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Im guessing it ok to half kill myself doing some extreme sport and then go to hospital as I was not drunk when I put my life I clear danger ?

I would guess some people certainly would object for similar reasons. You are deliberately putting yourself at high risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_sports

Some illegal sports, such as BASE jumping or elevator surfing, is argued to be purely adventurous. A counterargument is that the possibility of loss of life, rescues, and medical care that may be required for participants of these sports can end up costing the general public.

All it took was a single suicide blamed on psilocybian mushrooms here to spark them being made illegal. The guy who killed himself was drinking, but sure that's only natural, and they seemingly neglected to acknowledge that a very high % of suicides involve alcohol.

Loads of the more recent "head shop party drugs" were made illegal after relatively very small amounts of users had adverse effects. Its a crazy & bizarrely hypocritical situation that alcohol is still legal here.

The peer reviewed Lancet medical journal considers alcohol to be the most dangerous drug of all, including methamphetamine, heroin & crack.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK by a considerable margin, beating heroin and crack cocaine into second and third place, according to an authoritative study published today which will reopen calls for the drugs classification system to be scrapped and a concerted campaign launched against drink.

If any new drug had a minute fraction of A&E visits it would be banned.

I drink like a fish by the way.

QuiteInterestin · 25-09-2013 11:33PM

Think the stats are been used a bit loosely. From what I can tell, 1 in 4 people who present in A&E with an injury are alcohol related. This does not equal 1 in 4 attendances to A&E as in the thread title as many people who attend A&E would not be 'injured' they would have other conditions e.g. infections, collapse deteriorating health etc. That's my interpretation of the data anyways, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-09-2013 10:32AM

Jernal wrote: »

The 1/4 figure is based on the 100%. However, there are two caveats. The first is that the 64% of people doesn't include the incidents that were categorised as "alcohol related" because another intoxicated person inflicted harm on another. They also are only self reported figures.

Read the report.

They used a breathalyser.

I guess this is one of the reasons they limited the report to those who presented within 6 hours of the incident.

Yes they also included about 4% who were too intoxicated to provide consent and let's face it you don't need to be a medical student to identify someone obviously drunk.

Oh yes you can argue about the stats a few % either way, but I'd be shocked if you went to the Mater on a weekend night and there weren't a load of drunks there.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-09-2013 10:46AM

rubadub wrote: »

I would guess some people certainly would object for similar reasons. You are deliberately putting yourself at high risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_sports

Some illegal sports, such as BASE jumping or elevator surfing, is argued to be purely adventurous. A counterargument is that the possibility of loss of life, rescues, and medical care that may be required for participants of these sports can end up costing the general public.

cba looking up the exact stats for base jumping but something like 10% of those with a BASE number are now dead.

Not everyone who has died had a BASE number but 4 deaths so far this month

http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/wiki/BASE_Fatality_List
http://www.basenumbers.org/ui.asp

“One in four emergency department attendances are alcohol-related,”- what criteria...

Comments