Suppr超能文献

损伤机制无法预测伤情严重程度或所需的服务水平:重新审视现场分诊标准。

Mechanism of injury does not predict acuity or level of service need: field triage criteria revisited.

作者信息

Santaniello John M, Esposito Thomas J, Luchette Fred A, Atkian Debbie K, Davis Kimberly A, Gamelli Richard L

机构信息

Division of Trauma, Critical Care and Burns, Department of Surgery, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, 2160 South First Avenue, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.

出版信息

Surgery. 2003 Oct;134(4):698-703; discussion 703-4. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6060(03)00331-3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Trauma systems use specific criteria based on physiologic, anatomic, and mechanistic factors for field triage. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the emergency department disposition of patients not meeting mandatory criteria (ie, physiologic or anatomic factors) for triage to a trauma center and the potential for over- or undertriage.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of trauma admissions from July 1999 to June 2001, to a level I trauma center. Triage criteria were classified as physiologic factors (n=300), anatomic factors (n=115), or mechanistic factors (n=414), according to the criteria of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Physiologic and anatomic factors were combined and compared with mechanistic factors.

RESULTS

There were 1253 admissions during the study period. Sixty-six percent (n=830) met study inclusion criteria. Fifty percent (n=413) were admitted to the intensive care unit or operating room. Approximately 50% of each group (physiologic/anatomic, 52%; mechanistic, 47%; P=.08) were admitted directly to the operating room or to the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients not meeting mandatory criteria for transfer to a trauma center often have serious injuries that require a higher level of care. The inclusion of all or select mechanistic criteria for evaluation at a trauma center is appropriate to achieve an acceptable rate of clinical undertriage, as well as resource undertriage and its subsequent complications.

摘要

背景

创伤系统基于生理、解剖和机制因素使用特定标准进行现场分诊。本研究的目的是评估不符合转送至创伤中心的强制标准(即生理或解剖因素)的患者在急诊科的处置情况以及过度分诊或分诊不足的可能性。

方法

这是一项对1999年7月至2001年6月期间一所一级创伤中心的创伤入院患者进行的回顾性研究。根据美国外科医师学会创伤委员会的标准,将分诊标准分为生理因素(n = 300)、解剖因素(n = 115)或机制因素(n = 414)。将生理和解剖因素合并,并与机制因素进行比较。

结果

研究期间共有1253例入院患者。66%(n = 830)符合研究纳入标准。50%(n = 413)被收入重症监护病房或手术室。每组中约50%(生理/解剖组为52%;机制组为47%;P = 0.08)直接被收入手术室或重症监护病房。

结论

不符合转送至创伤中心强制标准的患者往往有严重损伤,需要更高水平的护理。纳入所有或部分机制标准在创伤中心进行评估,对于实现可接受的临床分诊不足率以及资源分诊不足及其后续并发症是合适的。

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