Suppr超能文献

试点研究:急诊科假设医疗患者处置的一致性

Pilot study: concordance of disposition for hypothetical medical patients in the emergency department.

作者信息

Hack Jason B, O'Brien Kevin, Benson Nicholas

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2005 Jun;12(6):562-7. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2004.12.016.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Emergency physicians (EPs) make dispositions for every patient in the emergency department (ED) and often require agreement from inpatient services to admit medical patients to the hospital. Sometimes disagreements arise. The authors sought to determine in their institution disposition concordance between EPs and admitting medical services of hypothetical ED patients. A second objective was to describe additional information requested by each service.

METHODS

Within a two-week period, physicians from emergency medicine (EM), family practice (FP), and internal medicine (IM) voluntarily completed anonymous questionnaires asking them to disposition hypothetical ED patients. Eleven case scenarios were followed by three disposition choices (admit, discharge, or cannot tell) from given information (followed by a free-text area).

RESULTS

A total of 105 questionnaires were returned: 42 from EM (12 attending physicians/30 residents), 33 from FP (14 attending physicians/19 residents), and 30 from IM (4 attending physicians/26 residents). Admission rates were statistically different for EM (68% attending physicians/65% residents/66% total) when compared with FP (42% attending physicians/54% residents/49% total) (p < 0.01) and IM (36% attending physicians/53% residents/51% total) (p < 0.01). Discharge rates were also statistically different for EM (8% attending physicians/19% residents/16% total) versus FP (29% attending physicians/29% residents/28% total) (p < 0.01) and IM (27% attending physicians/28% residents/28% total) (p < 0.01). "Cannot tell" rates were not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05) for EM (23% attending physicians/16% residents/18% total) versus FP (25% attending physicians/14% residents/19% total) and IM (36% attending physicians/16% residents/18% total). The proportion of additional tests requested in the "cannot tell" disposition by attending EPs was about half that of the other groups. Dispositions between FP and IM were not different at any level (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the authors' institution, when presented with identical hypothetical ED patients, EPs would admit more, discharge less, and ask for fewer additional tests than FP or IM physicians. The FP and IM physicians surveyed disposition patients in a similar manner.

摘要

目的

急诊医生要对急诊科的每位患者做出处置决定,并且常常需要获得住院服务部门的同意才能将内科患者收住院。有时会出现分歧。作者试图确定在他们的机构中,急诊医生与内科住院服务部门对于假设的急诊科患者的处置一致性。第二个目的是描述每个服务部门要求提供的额外信息。

方法

在两周的时间内,来自急诊医学(EM)、家庭医学(FP)和内科(IM)的医生自愿填写匿名问卷,要求他们对假设的急诊科患者进行处置。给出11个病例场景,随后根据给定信息给出三种处置选择(收住院、出院或无法判断)(后面还有一个自由文本区域)。

结果

共收回105份问卷:42份来自急诊医学(12名主治医师/30名住院医师),33份来自家庭医学(14名主治医师/19名住院医师),30份来自内科(4名主治医师/26名住院医师)。与家庭医学(42%的主治医师/54%的住院医师/49%的总体)(p<0.01)和内科(36%的主治医师/53%的住院医师/51%的总体)(p<0.01)相比,急诊医学的收住院率在统计学上存在差异(68%的主治医师/65%的住院医师/66%的总体)。急诊医学(8%的主治医师/19%的住院医师/16%的总体)与家庭医学(29%的主治医师/29%的住院医师/28%的总体)(p<0.01)和内科(27%的主治医师/28%的住院医师/28%的总体)(p<0.01)相比,出院率在统计学上也存在差异。对于急诊医学(23%的主治医师/16%的住院医师/18%的总体)与家庭医学(25%的主治医师/14%的住院医师/19%的总体)和内科(36%的主治医师/16%的住院医师/18%的总体),各组之间的“无法判断”率无显著差异(p>0.05)。急诊主治医师在“无法判断”处置中要求进行额外检查的比例约为其他组的一半。家庭医学和内科之间在任何水平上的处置均无差异(p>0.05)。

结论

在作者所在的机构中,面对相同的假设急诊科患者时,急诊医生收住院的患者更多,出院的患者更少,并且要求进行的额外检查比家庭医学或内科医生少。接受调查的家庭医学和内科医生对患者的处置方式相似。

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