Carter Alix J E, Davis Kimberly A, Evans Leigh V, Cone David C
Department of Surgery, Section of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009 Jul-Sep;13(3):280-5. doi: 10.1080/10903120802706260.
Little is known about how effectively information is transferred from emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to clinicians in the emergency department receiving the patient. Information about prehospital events and findings can help ensure expedient and appropriate care. The trauma literature describes 16 prehospital data points that affect outcome and therefore should be included in the EMS report when applicable.
To determine the degree to which information presented in the EMS trauma patient handover is degraded.
At a level I trauma center, patients meeting criteria for the highest level of trauma team activation ("full trauma") were enrolled. As part of routine performance improvement, the physician leadership of the trauma program watched all available video-recorded full trauma responses, checking off whether the data points appropriate to the case were verbally "transmitted" by the EMS provider. Two EMS physicians then each independently reviewed the trauma team's chart notes for 50% of the sample (and a randomly selected 15% of the charts to assess agreement) and checked off whether the same elements were documented ("received") by the trauma team. The focus was on data elements that were "transmitted" but not "received."
In 96 patient handovers, a total of 473 elements were transmitted, of which 329 were received (69.6%). On the average chart, 72.9% of the transmitted items were received (95% confidence interval 69.0%-76.8%). The most commonly transmitted data elements were mechanism of injury (94 times), anatomic location of injury (81), and age (67). Prehospital hypotension was received in only 10 of the 28 times it was transmitted; prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score 10 of 22 times; and pulse rate 13 of 49 times.
Even in the controlled setting of a single-patient handover with direct verbal contact between EMS providers and in-hospital clinicians, only 72.9% of the key prehospital data points that were transmitted by the EMS personnel were documented by the receiving hospital staff. Elements such as prehospital hypotension, GCS score, and other prehospital vital signs were often not recorded. Methods of "transmitting" and "receiving" data in trauma as well as all other patients need further scrutiny.
关于紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员向接收患者的急诊科临床医生有效传递信息的情况,我们了解得很少。有关院前事件和检查结果的信息有助于确保及时、恰当的治疗。创伤文献描述了16个影响预后的院前数据点,因此在适用时应包含在EMS报告中。
确定EMS创伤患者交接时所呈现信息的降解程度。
在一家一级创伤中心,纳入符合最高级别创伤团队启动标准(“全面创伤”)的患者。作为常规绩效改进的一部分,创伤项目的医师负责人观看了所有可用的全创伤反应视频记录,检查EMS提供者是否口头“传递”了适用于该病例的数据点。然后,两名EMS医生各自独立审查了样本中50%的创伤团队图表记录(并随机抽取15%的图表以评估一致性),检查创伤团队是否记录了相同的要素(“接收”)。重点关注“传递”但未“接收”的数据要素。
在96次患者交接中,总共传递了473个要素,其中329个被接收(69.6%)。在平均图表记录中,72.9%的传递项目被接收(95%置信区间69.0%-76.8%)。最常传递的数据要素是损伤机制(94次)、损伤的解剖位置(81次)和年龄(67次)。院前低血压在28次传递中仅10次被接收;院前格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分在22次中10次被接收;脉搏率在49次中13次被接收。
即使在EMS提供者与院内临床医生直接口头接触的单患者交接的受控环境中,EMS人员传递的关键院前数据点中只有72.9%被接收医院工作人员记录。诸如院前低血压、GCS评分和其他院前生命体征等要素经常未被记录。创伤以及所有其他患者的数据“传递”和“接收”方法需要进一步审查。