• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Implementation of a two-tier trauma response.

作者信息

Ryan J M, Gaudry P L, McDougall P A, McGrath P J

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Westmead Hospital, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

Injury. 1998 Nov;29(9):677-83. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(98)00161-2.

DOI:10.1016/s0020-1383(98)00161-2
PMID:10211199
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To apply a triage tool to patients on their arrival in the emergency department and determine the efficacy and safety of a two-tier trauma response.

DESIGN

Descriptive prospective audit.

SETTING

Principal urban referral hospital that provides a major trauma service.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The triage tool designated a major trauma or stable trauma response. A major trauma designation mobilised a multidisciplinary team and a stable trauma designation an expedited evaluation by emergency department staff. Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare major and stable trauma designations. Triage accuracy was evaluated using outcome variables.

MAIN RESULTS

78% of 58 major trauma responses and 30% of 180 stable trauma responses were admitted. The median injury severity score (and interquartile range) of admitted patients was 9.0 (5.0-19.5) for major responses and 5.0 (2.0-9.0) for stable responses. The triage tool had a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 87%, accuracy (appropriate triage rate) of 82%, undertriage rate of 8% and overtriage rate of 10%.

CONCLUSION

The triage tool adequately distinguished between patients with and without major trauma. Undertriaged patients had timely and appropriate referral for definitive surgical care and had no adverse outcomes.

摘要

相似文献

1
Implementation of a two-tier trauma response.
Injury. 1998 Nov;29(9):677-83. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(98)00161-2.
2
Evaluation of the trauma triage accuracy in a Level 1 Australian trauma centre.澳大利亚一级创伤中心创伤分诊准确性评估
Emerg Med Australas. 2018 Oct;30(5):699-704. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13117. Epub 2018 Jun 11.
3
Trauma team activation criteria as predictors of patient disposition from the emergency department.作为急诊科患者处置预测指标的创伤团队启动标准。
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;11(1):1-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2004.tb01364.x.
4
Prospective evaluation of a two-tiered trauma activation protocol in an Australian major trauma referral hospital.前瞻性评估澳大利亚一家主要创伤转介医院的两层创伤激活方案。
Injury. 2010 May;41(5):470-4. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.01.003. Epub 2010 Jan 21.
5
Validation of new trauma triage rules for trauma attending response to the emergency department.急诊科创伤主治医生应对新创伤分诊规则的验证
J Trauma. 2002 Jun;52(6):1153-8; discussion 1158-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200206000-00022.
6
Using a multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach to decrease undertriage and overtriage of pediatric trauma patients.采用多学科且基于证据的方法,以减少儿科创伤患者的分诊不足和过度分诊情况。
J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Sep;51(9):1518-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.04.010. Epub 2016 Apr 22.
7
Simple modification of trauma mechanism alarm criteria published for the TraumaNetwork DGU may significantly improve overtriage - a cross sectional study.创伤机制报警标准的简单修改可能会显著改善过度分诊——一项横断面研究。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Apr 24;26(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13049-018-0498-x.
8
A criteria-directed protocol for in-hospital triage of trauma patients.创伤患者院内分诊的基于标准的方案。
Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Feb;25(1):25-31. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000397.
9
A simplified set of trauma triage criteria to safely reduce overtriage: a prospective study.一套简化的创伤分诊标准以安全减少过度分诊:一项前瞻性研究。
Arch Surg. 2009 Sep;144(9):853-8. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.153.
10
Undertriage of major trauma patients in the US emergency departments.美国急诊科对重大创伤患者的分诊不足。
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Sep;32(9):997-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.05.038. Epub 2014 Jun 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Effectiveness of a two-tiered trauma team activation system at a level I trauma center.在一级创伤中心实施双层创伤小组激活系统的效果。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Oct;50(5):2265-2272. doi: 10.1007/s00068-024-02644-2. Epub 2024 Aug 28.
2
Prospective validation of a hospital triage predictive model to decrease undertriage: an EAST multicenter study.一种用于减少分诊不足的医院分诊预测模型的前瞻性验证:一项东部地区多中心研究。
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024 May 2;9(1):e001280. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2023-001280. eCollection 2024.
3
Determination of mis-triage in trauma patients: a systematic review.
创伤患者分诊错误的确定:系统评价。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Oct;45(5):821-839. doi: 10.1007/s00068-019-01097-2. Epub 2019 Feb 23.
4
Validation of the Korean criteria for trauma team activation.韩国创伤团队启动标准的验证
Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2018 Dec;5(4):256-263. doi: 10.15441/ceem.17.265. Epub 2018 Dec 31.
5
A consensus-based criterion standard definition for pediatric patients who needed the highest-level trauma team activation.一个基于共识的标准定义,用于确定需要最高级别创伤团队激活的儿科患者。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Mar;78(3):634-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000543.
6
Efficacy of a two-tiered trauma team activation protocol in a Norwegian trauma centre.挪威创伤中心双层创伤小组激活方案的疗效。
Br J Surg. 2012 Feb;99(2):199-208. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7794. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
7
[Personnel and structural requirements for the shock trauma room management of multiple trauma. A systematic review of the literature].[多发伤休克创伤室管理的人员与结构要求。文献系统综述]
Unfallchirurg. 2004 Oct;107(10):851-61. doi: 10.1007/s00113-004-0813-z.
8
Scoring systems in trauma.创伤评分系统
Ir J Med Sci. 2000 Jul-Sep;169(3):168-72. doi: 10.1007/BF03167688.