Department of Emergency Medicine, Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098, USA.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 May;72(5):1239-48. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182468b51.
BACKGROUND: "Emergency medical services (EMS) provider judgment" was recently added as a field triage criterion to the national guidelines, yet its predictive value and real world application remain unclear. We examine the use and independent predictive value of EMS provider judgment in identifying seriously injured persons. METHODS: We analyzed a population-based retrospective cohort, supplemented by qualitative analysis, of injured children and adults evaluated and transported by 47 EMS agencies to 94 hospitals in five regions across the Western United States from 2006 to 2008. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the independent predictive value of EMS provider judgment for Injury Severity Score ≥ 16. EMS narratives were analyzed using qualitative methods to assess and compare common themes for each step in the triage algorithm, plus EMS provider judgment. RESULTS: 213,869 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS over the 3-year period, of whom 41,191 (19.3%) met at least one of the field triage criteria. EMS provider judgment was the most commonly used triage criterion (40.0% of all triage-positive patients; sole criterion in 21.4%). After accounting for other triage criteria and confounders, the adjusted odds ratio of Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 for EMS provider judgment was 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.47), although there was variability in predictive value across sites. Patients meeting EMS provider judgment had concerning clinical presentations qualitatively similar to those meeting mechanistic and other special considerations criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Among this multisite cohort of trauma patients, EMS provider judgment was the most commonly used field trauma triage criterion, independently associated with serious injury, and useful in identifying high-risk patients missed by other criteria. However, there was variability in predictive value between sites.
背景:“紧急医疗服务(EMS)提供者判断”最近被添加为国家指南中的现场分诊标准,但它的预测价值和实际应用仍不清楚。我们研究了 EMS 提供者判断在识别重伤人员中的使用情况及其独立预测价值。
方法:我们分析了一个基于人群的回顾性队列,补充了定性分析,涉及 2006 年至 2008 年间,美国西部五个地区的 47 个 EMS 机构评估和运送的受伤儿童和成人,共有 94 家医院。我们使用逻辑回归模型评估 EMS 提供者判断对损伤严重程度评分≥16 的独立预测价值。使用定性方法分析 EMS 叙述,以评估和比较分诊算法每个步骤的常见主题,以及 EMS 提供者判断。
结果:在 3 年期间,有 213869 名受伤患者接受了 EMS 的评估和运送,其中有 41191 名(19.3%)符合至少一个现场分诊标准。EMS 提供者判断是最常用的分诊标准(所有分诊阳性患者的 40.0%;21.4%的患者单独使用该标准)。在考虑其他分诊标准和混杂因素后,EMS 提供者判断对损伤严重程度评分≥16 的调整优势比为 1.23(95%置信区间,1.03-1.47),尽管在不同地点之间存在预测值的差异。符合 EMS 提供者判断的患者在临床表现上与符合机械和其他特殊考虑标准的患者具有相似的特征。
结论:在这个多地点的创伤患者队列中,EMS 提供者判断是最常用的现场创伤分诊标准,与严重损伤独立相关,可用于识别其他标准遗漏的高风险患者。然而,在不同地点之间存在预测值的差异。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014
Ann Emerg Med. 2012-5-24
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2025-4-1
Br Paramed J. 2024-6-1
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023-1-20
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022-8-1
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2022-1-18
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2022-1-14
J Acute Med. 2021-3-1
J Trauma. 2010-7
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008
J Trauma. 2008-3
Acad Emerg Med. 2007-7
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006