This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow P3Rs: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spiller, H. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rodgers, G. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Spiller, H. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rodgers, G. C., Jr
Related Collections
Right arrow Therapeutics & Toxicology

PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 6 December 2001, pp. e100

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE

Evaluation of Administration of Activated Charcoal in the Home

Henry A. Spiller, MS, DABAT* and George C. Rodgers, Jr, MD, PhD*,{ddagger}

* Kentucky Regional Poison Center, Louisville, Kentucky
{ddagger} University of Louisville, School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky

Objective. Activated charcoal (AC) is recognized as the treatment of choice for gastrointestinal decontamination after many ingestions. AC use in the home has been limited by concerns that parents would not administer it properly and that children would refuse to take AC. Previous descriptions of home administration have reported mixed results.

Methods. This was an 18-month consecutive case series of all patients for whom AC administration was recommended in the home. Data collected included AC availability in the home and/or a local pharmacy, success in administration, amount administered, time after ingestion to AC administration, difficulties in administration, adverse effects, age and gender of patient, substance involved in poisoning, and medical outcome. All cases were followed for at least 3 days after the ingestion. Patients who initially had home AC recommendation but who ultimately were treated in the emergency department (ED) served as a comparison group.

Results. Home administration of AC was recommended in 138 cases. A total of 115 individuals (83%) were treated with AC in the home, with no failures to administer AC. Reasons for failure to manage at home were 1) mother preferred ED (8 cases), 2) could not locate AC (7 cases), 3) pharmacy closed for the night (6 cases) and 4) no home telephone for follow-up (2 cases). Time to AC administration after ingestion was a mean of 38 minutes (±18.3) for home treatment and 73 minutes (±18.1) for ED treatment. Ninety-five percent of home cases received AC in <=60 minutes versus 33% for ED management. AC was in the home in 11 cases at the time of recommendation. The amount of AC administered was a mean of 12.1 g (standard deviation: 6.9) and a median of 12 g. Eight children (6.9%) who were treated at home vomited after AC versus 3 (13%) who received ED treatment. No aspirations or complications occurred.

Conclusion. AC can be administered successfully by the lay public in the home. Home use of AC significantly reduces the time to AC administration.

Key Words: activated charcoal • home treatment • children

Abbreviations: AC, activated charcoal • GI, gastrointestinal • ED, emergency department

Received for publication May 14, 2001; Accepted Jul 3, 2001.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JWatch GeneralHome page
Use of Activated Charcoal in the Home
Journal Watch (General), December 7, 2001; 2001(1207): 1 - 1.
[Full Text]

P3Rs:

Read all P3Rs

the uk perspective.
lewis jones
Pediatrics Online, 13 Dec 2001 [Full text]