Suppr超能文献

澳大利亚灾难分诊:巴别塔中的色彩迷宫。

Australian disaster triage: a colour maze in the Tower of Babel.

作者信息

Nocera A, Garner A

机构信息

NRMA CareFlight, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

Aust N Z J Surg. 1999 Aug;69(8):598-602. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1622.1999.01643.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to review the systems of disaster triage used by Australian State and Territory ambulance services and compare their triage taxonomy, methodology and documentation with the Australian Council on Health Care Standard's (ACHCS) National Triage Scale, which is used in all Australian hospital emergency departments.

METHODS

A postal survey of the State and Territory ambulance services during October 1996 was conducted. Details of the mass casualty incident (MCI) triage systems were then compared with the ACHCS National Triage Scale. Colours specified or used on a triage tag were checked for compliance with Standards Australia AS-2700 1996 Colour Standards for General Purposes. Participants consisted of those State and Territory ambulance services which would be the initial emergency medical service responders in the event of an MCI in an Australian capital city, and the ACHCS. The main outcome measure was the homology between the respective triage taxonomies, methodologies and documentation systems.

RESULTS

All eight State and Territory ambulance services used a numerical and colour coded system to indicate triage priority during an MCI. There were five different triage tag designs for triage documentation, six different triage taxonomies and five different triage methodologies with minimal homology between the different triage systems and the National Triage Scale used in hospitals. Only two ambulance triage systems specifically triaged emotional disturbance. Several triage tags and their patient attachments were made from perishable materials and are thus likely to fail under field conditions.

CONCLUSION

The multiplicity of triage systems used within Australia will result in avoidable confusion, thus hindering the medical response to an MCI, especially for incidents near State or Territory borders. There is little evidence to support the continued use of triage tags. Australia needs to develop a uniform system of patient triage as a national priority.

摘要

背景

本研究的目的是回顾澳大利亚各州和领地救护车服务所使用的灾难分诊系统,并将其分诊分类法、方法和文件记录与澳大利亚医疗保健标准委员会(ACHCS)的国家分诊量表进行比较,该量表在澳大利亚所有医院急诊科使用。

方法

1996年10月对各州和领地救护车服务进行了邮政调查。然后将大规模伤亡事件(MCI)分诊系统的详细信息与ACHCS国家分诊量表进行比较。检查分诊标签上指定或使用的颜色是否符合澳大利亚标准协会AS-2700 1996通用颜色标准。参与者包括在澳大利亚首都城市发生MCI时将作为初始紧急医疗服务响应者的各州和领地救护车服务机构以及ACHCS。主要结果指标是各自分诊分类法、方法和文件记录系统之间的同源性。

结果

所有八个州和领地救护车服务机构在MCI期间都使用数字和颜色编码系统来指示分诊优先级。有五种不同的分诊标签设计用于分诊文件记录,六种不同的分诊分类法和五种不同的分诊方法,不同分诊系统与医院使用的国家分诊量表之间的同源性极小。只有两个救护车分诊系统专门对情绪障碍进行分诊。几个分诊标签及其患者附件由易腐材料制成,因此在现场条件下可能会失效。

结论

澳大利亚使用的分诊系统多种多样,将导致可避免的混乱,从而阻碍对MCI的医疗响应,特别是对于靠近州或领地边界的事件。几乎没有证据支持继续使用分诊标签。澳大利亚需要将制定统一的患者分诊系统作为国家优先事项。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验