Suppr超能文献

福伦丹火灾灾难后初级分诊过程的可靠性

Reliability of the primary triage process after the Volendam fire disaster.

作者信息

Welling Lieke, van Harten Sabine M, Henny C Pieter, Mackie Dave P, Ubbink Dirk T, Kreis Robert W, Trouwborst Ad

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

出版信息

J Emerg Med. 2008 Aug;35(2):181-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.06.009. Epub 2007 Oct 18.

Abstract

In a major incident, correct triage is crucial to emergency treatment and transportation priority. The aim of this study was to evaluate the triage process pursued at the site of the fire disaster in Volendam, the Netherlands on January 1, 2001. On-site (OS) and Emergency Department (ED) data regarding total body surface area burned (TBSA) and inhalation injury (INH) were compared with the final (FIN) assessment of these two parameters after hospital admission. Finally, the effect of OS intubation and the time of arrival at a hospital were evaluated. There were 245 injured. Mean age was 17.3 years. Final median TBSA was 12%; 96 patients (39%) had inhalation injury. Agreement between TBSA-OS (n = 46) and TBSA-FIN was poor (Pearson's correlations coefficient [PCC] = 0.77; R(2) = 0.60). TBSA-ED (n = 78) was more accurate (PCC = 0.96; R(2) = 0.93). INH-OS (n = 79, sensitivity 100%, specificity 24%) and INH-ED (n = 198, sensitivity 99%, specificity 36%) were sensitive but not specific. Eight patients were intubated on-site. No differences in outcome were found between this group and the patients who were intubated in the hospital. There was no difference in time of arrival at a hospital (p = 0.55). TBSA was not estimated reliably in a non-clinical environment. The diagnosis of inhalation injury was adequate but resulted in over-triage on-site and at the ED. Triage did not lead to transport priorities for the severely wounded. In a major burn accident, a field triage protocol for rapid evaluation of burn injuries may be useful. Detailed assessment of injuries of burn casualties is practical only in a specialized clinical setting.

摘要

在重大事故中,正确的分诊对于紧急治疗和运输优先级至关重要。本研究的目的是评估2001年1月1日在荷兰福伦丹火灾现场所采用的分诊过程。将现场(OS)和急诊科(ED)关于烧伤总面积(TBSA)和吸入性损伤(INH)的数据与入院后对这两个参数的最终(FIN)评估进行比较。最后,评估现场插管的效果以及到达医院的时间。共有245名伤者。平均年龄为17.3岁。最终TBSA中位数为12%;96名患者(39%)有吸入性损伤。TBSA-OS(n = 46)与TBSA-FIN之间的一致性较差(皮尔逊相关系数[PCC] = 0.77;R(2) = 0.60)。TBSA-ED(n = 78)更准确(PCC = 0.96;R(2) = 0.93)。INH-OS(n = 79,敏感性100%,特异性24%)和INH-ED(n = 198,敏感性99%,特异性36%)很敏感但不具有特异性。8名患者在现场进行了插管。该组与在医院插管的患者之间在结局上未发现差异。到达医院的时间没有差异(p = 0.55)。在非临床环境中无法可靠地估计TBSA。吸入性损伤的诊断是充分的,但导致了现场和急诊科的过度分诊。分诊并未导致重伤员的运输优先级。在重大烧伤事故中,用于快速评估烧伤损伤的现场分诊方案可能会有用。对烧伤伤员损伤的详细评估仅在专门的临床环境中才可行。

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