文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

解析“急救医疗服务提供者判断”在院外创伤分诊中的使用及预测价值:一项多地点、混合方法评估。

Deciphering the use and predictive value of "emergency medical services provider judgment" in out-of-hospital trauma triage: a multisite, mixed methods assessment.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098, USA.

出版信息

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 May;72(5):1239-48. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182468b51.


DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182468b51
PMID:22673250
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3376024/
Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

[1]
Deciphering the use and predictive value of "emergency medical services provider judgment" in out-of-hospital trauma triage: a multisite, mixed methods assessment.

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012-5

[2]
Out-of-hospital decision making and factors influencing the regional distribution of injured patients in a trauma system.

J Trauma. 2011-6

[3]
Variation in prehospital use and uptake of the national Field Triage Decision Scheme.

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013

[4]
Physiologic field triage criteria for identifying seriously injured older adults.

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014

[5]
Evaluating age in the field triage of injured persons.

Ann Emerg Med. 2012-5-24

[6]
Role of Guideline Adherence in Improving Field Triage.

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017

[7]
Patient choice in the selection of hospitals by 9-1-1 emergency medical services providers in trauma systems.

Acad Emerg Med. 2013-9

[8]
A multisite assessment of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma field triage decision scheme for identifying seriously injured children and adults.

J Am Coll Surg. 2011-12

[9]
Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011.

MMWR Recomm Rep. 2012-1-13

[10]
Ability of the Physiologic Criteria of the Field Triage Guidelines to Identify Children Who Need the Resources of a Trauma Center.

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017

引用本文的文献

[1]
Exploring patient and system factors impacting undertriage of injured patients meeting national field triage guideline criteria.

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2025-4-1

[2]
Major Trauma Triage Tool Study (MATTS) expert consensus-derived injury assessment tool.

Br Paramed J. 2024-6-1

[3]
EMS injury cause codes more accurate than emergency department visit ICD-10-CM codes for firearm injury intent in North Carolina.

PLoS One. 2024

[4]
Accuracy of a Prehospital Triage Protocol in Predicting In-Hospital Mortality and Severe Trauma Cases among Older Adults.

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023-1-20

[5]
National guideline for the field triage of injured patients: Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2021.

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022-8-1

[6]
Individual risk factors predictive of major trauma in pre-hospital injured older patients: a systematic review.

Br Paramed J. 2022-3-1

[7]
Mechanism of injury and special considerations as predictive of serious injury: A systematic review.

Acad Emerg Med. 2022-9

[8]
The national trauma triage protocol: how EMS perspective can inform the guideline revision.

Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2022-1-18

[9]
Comparison of prehospital professional accuracy, speed, and interrater reliability of six pediatric triage algorithms.

J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2022-1-14

[10]
Effect of Field Triage Training on Emergency Medical Technicians in Taipei City.

J Acute Med. 2021-3-1

本文引用的文献

[1]
A multisite assessment of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma field triage decision scheme for identifying seriously injured children and adults.

J Am Coll Surg. 2011-12

[2]
Out-of-hospital decision making and factors influencing the regional distribution of injured patients in a trauma system.

J Trauma. 2011-6

[3]
The value of trauma center care.

J Trauma. 2010-7

[4]
Evaluation of the Prehospital Index, presence of high-velocity impact and judgment of emergency medical technicians as criteria for trauma triage.

CJEM. 2010-3

[5]
Guidelines for field triage of injured patients. Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage.

MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009-1-23

[6]
Establishing the need for trauma center care: anatomic injury or resource use?

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008

[7]
Prehospital prediction of the severity of blunt anatomic injury.

J Trauma. 2008-3

[8]
Advanced statistics: missing data in clinical research--part 2: multiple imputation.

Acad Emerg Med. 2007-7

[9]
History of trauma field triage development and the American College of Surgeons criteria.

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006

[10]
The validity of using multiple imputation for missing out-of-hospital data in a state trauma registry.

Acad Emerg Med. 2006-3

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索