Arendts G, Elgafi S
Department of Emergency Medicine, St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia.
Emerg Med J. 2006 May;23(5):388-90. doi: 10.1136/emj.2005.026831.
To determine which of three commonly used methods for notifying medical staff of the arrival of an emergent case to the triage area of an emergency department (ED) is optimal.
Prospective, randomised trial. Patients arriving with conditions rated as emergencies (triage category 2) were randomised to one of three notification arms: by microphone, by telephone, or by computer. The proportion of patients seen by a doctor within 10 minutes of arrival to the ED in each arm was compared.
A total of 1000 patients were enrolled. The proportion seen within 10 minutes for patients announced by microphone was significantly greater than those announced by telephone or computer (67.0% v 63.2% v 57.3%, respectively; chi2 6.30, p = 0.04). No method achieved the benchmark proportion of 80% of patients seen within 10 minutes of arrival.
A microphone announcement heard by overhead speakers should be incorporated with other strategies to improve the timeliness of medical assessment of emergent cases.
确定在急诊科（ED）将紧急病例送达分诊区时通知医务人员的三种常用方法中哪种是最佳方法。
前瞻性随机试验。将病情被评定为紧急情况（分诊类别2）的患者随机分为三个通知组之一：通过扩音器、通过电话或通过计算机。比较每组患者到达ED后10分钟内由医生诊治的比例。
共纳入1000例患者。通过扩音器通知的患者在10分钟内接受诊治的比例显著高于通过电话或计算机通知的患者（分别为67.0%对63.2%对57.3%；卡方值6.30，p = 0.04）。没有一种方法达到到达后10分钟内80%的患者接受诊治的基准比例。
应将通过头顶扬声器听到的扩音器通知与其他策略相结合，以提高紧急病例医疗评估的及时性。
