Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010 Nov 22;18:60. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-18-60.
The pre-hospital assessment of a blunt trauma is difficult. Common triage tools are the mechanism of injury (MOI), vital signs, and anatomic injury (AI). Compared to the other tools, the clinical assessment of anatomic injury is more subjective than the others, and, hence, more dependent on the skills of the personnel.The aim of the study was to estimate whether the training and qualifications of the personnel are associated with the accuracy of prediction of anatomic injury and the completion of pre-hospital procedures indicated by local guidelines.
Adult trauma patients met by a trauma team at Helsinki University Trauma Centre during a 12-month period (n = 422) were retrospectively analysed. To evaluate the accuracy of prediction of anatomic injury, clinically assessed pre-hospital injuries in six body regions were compared to injuries assessed at hospital in two patient groups, the patients treated by pre-hospital physicians (group 1, n = 230) and those treated by paramedics (group 2, n = 190).
The groups were comparable in respect to age, sex, and MOI, but the patients treated by physicians were more severely injured than those treated by paramedics [ISS median (interquartile range) 16 (6-26) vs. 6 (2-10)], thus rendering direct comparison of the groups ineligible. The positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of assessed injury were highest in head injury [0,91 (0,84-0,95) in group 1 and 0,86 (0,77-0,92) in group 2]. The negative predictive values were highest in abdominal injury [0,85 (0,79-0,89) in group 1 and 0,90 (0,84-0,93) in group 2]. The measurements of agreement between injuries assessed pre- and in-hospitally were moderate in thoracic and extremity injuries. Substantial kappa values (95% confidence interval) were achieved in head injury, 0,67 (0,57-0,77) in group 1 and 0,63 (0,52-0,74) in group 2. The rate of performing the pre-hospital procedures as indicated by the local instructions was 95-99%, except for decompression of tension pneumothorax.
Accurate prediction of anatomic injury is challenging. No conclusive differences were seen in the ability of pre-hospital physicians and paramedics to predict anatomic injury in the respective patient populations.
钝器创伤的院前评估具有一定难度。常用的分诊工具包括致伤机制(MOI)、生命体征和解剖损伤(AI)。与其他工具相比,解剖损伤的临床评估比其他工具更具主观性,因此更多地依赖于人员的技能。本研究旨在评估人员的培训和资质是否与解剖损伤预测的准确性以及完成当地指南规定的院前程序有关。
回顾性分析了在赫尔辛基大学创伤中心由创伤团队治疗的 12 个月期间(n=422)的成年创伤患者。为了评估解剖损伤预测的准确性,将在六个身体部位进行的院前临床评估损伤与在两组患者中的损伤进行比较,一组由院前医生治疗(组 1,n=230),另一组由护理人员治疗(组 2,n=190)。
两组在年龄、性别和 MOI 方面具有可比性,但接受医生治疗的患者比接受护理人员治疗的患者受伤更严重[ISS 中位数(四分位距)16(6-26)比 6(2-10)],因此不适合直接比较两组。在组 1 中,评估损伤的阳性预测值(95%置信区间)最高,为 0.91(0.84-0.95),在组 2 中为 0.86(0.77-0.92)。在组 1 中,腹部损伤的阴性预测值最高,为 0.85(0.79-0.89),在组 2 中为 0.90(0.84-0.93)。在胸部和四肢损伤中,测量结果显示,在住院前和住院期间评估的损伤之间存在中等程度的一致性。在组 1 中,头部损伤的实际kappa 值(95%置信区间)为 0.67(0.57-0.77),在组 2 中为 0.63(0.52-0.74),达到了显著水平。按照当地指南指示进行的院前程序的比例为 95%-99%,除张力性气胸减压外。
准确预测解剖损伤具有挑战性。在各自的患者群体中,院前医生和护理人员预测解剖损伤的能力没有明显差异。