Suppr超能文献

急性心肌梗死患者在急诊科分诊中的时间变化及其对结局的影响。

Temporal changes in emergency department triage of patients with acute myocardial infarction and the effect on outcomes.

机构信息

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Am Heart J. 2011 Sep;162(3):451-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.05.015.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

All patients who present to an emergency department (ED) are triaged. The ED triage score may determine when patients are seen by a physician. Half of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were given a low priority score in Ontario in 2000/2001. We assessed the appropriateness of ED triage and its association with quality indicators and outcomes in a more recent AMI cohort and compared this with previous findings.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of a population-based cohort of patients with AMI admitted to 96 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, in 2004/2005. Outcome measures included rate of low-priority ED triage (score of 3, 4, or 5), compared with an earlier cohort (fiscal year 2000) at the same sites, and the adjusted effect of low-priority ED triage on door-to-electrocardiogram, door-to-needle, and door-to-balloon time; hospital length of stay (LOS); and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 6,605 patients with AMI, low-priority triage was less frequent than in the earlier cohort, at 33.3% versus 50.3%. In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), it was 25.9%, versus 43.8% previously. Between cohorts, the greatest improvement in triage occurred in patients with chest pain, in those seen at higher AMI volume EDs, and in ambulatory patients; patients seen at low AMI volume EDs, those with diabetes, and the elderly showed the least improvement. Being assigned a low-priority triage score was associated with an adjusted increase in median door-to-electrocardiogram and door-to-needle time of 12.2 (P < .001) and 20.7 minutes (P < .001), respectively, longer than in the earlier cohort (4.4 and 15.1 minutes). It was associated with hospital LOS >75th percentile (odds ratio [OR] 1.25, P < .001), and higher 90-day (OR 1.50, P = .02) and 1-year mortality (OR 1.37, P = .05) in patients with STEMI.

CONCLUSION

Emergency department triage of patients with AMI improved substantially over 5 years. For the third of patients with AMI who continue to receive a low priority score, including 25% of patients with STEMI, the associated delays in diagnosis and therapy were greater than previously and were associated with increased hospital LOS and mortality. Given the impact of this initial, cursory assessment, hospital systems should consider monitoring the quality of their ED triage.

摘要

背景

所有到急诊科就诊的患者都要进行分诊。急诊科分诊评分可能决定患者何时由医生接诊。2000/2001 年,安大略省一半的急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者被评为低优先级。我们评估了在最近的 AMI 队列中急诊分诊的适当性及其与质量指标和结果的关系,并与之前的发现进行了比较。

方法

我们对加拿大安大略省 96 家医院 2004/2005 年收治的 AMI 患者进行了基于人群的回顾性队列研究。结局指标包括低优先级急诊分诊(评分 3、4 或 5)的发生率,与同一地点的早期队列(财政年度 2000 年)进行比较,以及低优先级急诊分诊对门到心电图、门到针和门到球囊时间的调整效应;住院时间(LOS);和死亡率。

结果

在 6605 例 AMI 患者中,低优先级分诊的比例低于早期队列,为 33.3%,而 50.3%。ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者为 25.9%,而此前为 43.8%。与队列之间,分诊方面最大的改善发生在胸痛患者、在接受治疗的 AMI 量较高的急诊科就诊的患者和门诊患者中;在 AMI 量较低的急诊科就诊的患者、有糖尿病的患者和老年人则改善最少。被评为低优先级分诊的患者,调整后的中位数门到心电图和门到针的时间分别延长 12.2 分钟(P<0.001)和 20.7 分钟(P<0.001),高于早期队列(分别为 4.4 分钟和 15.1 分钟)。这与住院时间超过第 75 百分位数(优势比[OR]1.25,P<0.001)以及 90 天(OR 1.50,P=0.02)和 1 年死亡率(OR 1.37,P=0.05)增加有关,STEMI 患者。

结论

AMI 患者的急诊分诊在 5 年内有了显著改善。对于继续获得低优先级评分的三分之一 AMI 患者,包括 25%的 STEMI 患者,相关的诊断和治疗延迟大于以往,与住院时间延长和死亡率增加有关。鉴于这种初始粗略评估的影响,医院系统应考虑监测其急诊分诊的质量。

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