Kotecha B, Cocks R A, Rothera M P
ENT Department, Hope Hospital, Salford, England.
Arch Emerg Med. 1990 Mar;7(1):35-41. doi: 10.1136/emj.7.1.35.
A short questionnaire on the subject of the management of epistaxis was sent to forty accident & emergency departments in two NHS regions. Thirty replies were received (response of 75%). It was found that all departments were involved in the initial management of epistaxis, but the extent of that involvement varied considerably. One of the most obvious factors contributing towards the degree of involvement was the liaison between the accident & emergency and the ENT departments. Three departments never referred patients to the ENT department for follow-up. Nine departments performed their own nasal cautery, but half of these did not use any form of local anaesthesia. Twenty-seven departments used various forms of nasal packing but, of these, two-thirds did not use any form of local anaesthesia. Twenty-three departments allowed patients to go home with a nasal pack in situ. The results of this survey are discussed and a guideline to the management of epistaxis in an accident & emergency setting is suggested.
一份关于鼻出血处理的简短问卷被发送至两个国民健康服务（NHS）地区的40个急诊科。共收到30份回复（回复率为75%）。结果发现，所有科室都参与了鼻出血的初始处理，但参与程度差异很大。导致参与程度不同的最明显因素之一是急诊科与耳鼻喉科之间的联络情况。有3个科室从不将患者转诊至耳鼻喉科进行后续治疗。9个科室自行进行鼻腔烧灼，但其中一半未使用任何形式的局部麻醉。27个科室使用了各种形式的鼻腔填塞，但其中三分之二未使用任何形式的局部麻醉。23个科室允许患者带着鼻腔填塞物回家。本文讨论了该调查结果，并提出了在急诊科处理鼻出血的指南。
