Mann N Clay, Schmidt Terri A, Cone David C
Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004 Apr-Jun;8(2):138-53. doi: 10.1016/j.prehos.2003.12.005.
Researchers interested in ensuring appropriate use of emergency medical services (EMS) resources have attempted to define safe and effective protocols for triage either at the time of dispatch or after on-scene evaluation. Published work in this area is difficult to evaluate because protocols and outcome criteria vary from study to study. The goal of the Neely Conference was to bring together EMS experts to define a set of criteria to be used in research studies evaluating dispatch triage and field triage systems.
Thirty-one experts in EMS systems and research attended a day-long workshop to assess the current literature regarding dispatch triage and field triage, and make recommendations to standardize methods used to evaluate future triage protocols. Participants were surveyed during the workshop; consensus analysis techniques were used to determine if a formal consensus was reached. A Bayesian posterior probability of 0.99 was required to consider responses a "consensus."
Participants considered current evidence regarding the usefulness of EMS triage criteria to be "weak." However, respondents agreed on a set of research criteria that could define the need for an EMS response and/or EMS transport. Field triage criteria were considered more plausible than dispatch criteria. Valid outcome criteria for assessing the effectiveness of triage protocols included ED assessment and the need for immediate surgery. Hospital admission, final diagnosis, and expert opinion were not considered adequate outcome measures.
EMS experts agreed on a standard set of triage criteria and outcome measures for evaluating triage protocols supporting alternative forms of transport and care.
关注确保合理使用紧急医疗服务(EMS)资源的研究人员试图在调度时或现场评估后定义安全有效的分诊方案。该领域已发表的研究成果难以评估,因为不同研究的方案和结果标准各不相同。尼利会议的目标是召集EMS专家,以定义一套用于评估调度分诊和现场分诊系统的研究标准。
31位EMS系统和研究领域的专家参加了为期一天的研讨会,评估当前有关调度分诊和现场分诊的文献,并就标准化用于评估未来分诊方案的方法提出建议。在研讨会期间对参与者进行了调查;采用共识分析技术来确定是否达成了正式共识。需要贝叶斯后验概率为0.99才能将回复视为“共识”。
参与者认为目前关于EMS分诊标准有用性的证据“不足”。然而,受访者就一套可以定义EMS响应和/或EMS转运需求的研究标准达成了一致。现场分诊标准被认为比调度标准更合理。评估分诊方案有效性的有效结果标准包括急诊评估和立即手术的需求。医院入院、最终诊断和专家意见不被视为充分的结果指标。
EMS专家就一套标准的分诊标准和结果指标达成了一致,用于评估支持替代运输和护理形式的分诊方案。