The University of Western Australia, Emergency Medicine , 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009 Australia.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013 Jul-Sep;17(3):339-47. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2013.773114. Epub 2013 Mar 13.
Acute pulmonary edema (APE) is a common cause of acute dyspnea. In the prehospital setting, it is often difficult to differentiate APE from other causes of shortness of breath (SOB). Radiography and echocardiography aid in the identification of APE but are often not available. There is little information on how accurately ambulance paramedics identify patients with APE. Objectives. This study aimed to 1) describe the prehospital clinical presentation and management of patients with a clinical diagnosis of APE and 2) compare the accuracy of coding of APE by paramedics against the emergency department (ED) medical discharge diagnosis.
This study included a retrospective cohort of all patients who had episodes identified as APE by ambulance paramedics and were transported to a metropolitan hospital ED in 2011. Two databases were used: an ambulance database and the Emergency Department Information System. The ED medical discharge diagnosis (using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Problems, 10th Revision, Australian Modification [ICD-10-AM] codes) was used as the comparator with paramedic-assigned problem codes for APE. The outcomes for the study were the positive predictive value, i.e., the proportion of patients identified as having APE in the ambulance database who also had an ED discharge diagnosis of APE, and the sensitivity of paramedic identification of APE, i.e., the proportion of patients with an ED discharge diagnosis of APE that were correctly identified as APE by the ambulance paramedics.
Four hundred ninety-five patients were transported to an ED with APE identified by the paramedics as the primary problem code. Shortness of breath, crepitations, high systolic blood pressure, and chest pain were the most common presenting signs and symptoms. Pink frothy sputum was rare (3% of patient episodes of APE). One hundred eighty-six patients received an ED discharge diagnosis of APE, i.e., a positive predictive value of 41%. Of 631 ED presentations with APE, paramedics identified 186, i.e., a sensitivity of 29%.
Acute pulmonary edema is difficult to identify in the prehospital setting because of the variability in the signs and symptoms associated with this condition. Improved identification of APE is essential in the initiation of appropriate and timely care. Ambulance paramedics need to be aware of such variability when considering patients who may be suffering from APE. Key words: pulmonary edema; acute pulmonary edema; emergency medical services; ambulance; paramedics.
急性肺水肿(APE)是急性呼吸困难的常见原因。在院前环境中,通常很难将 APE 与其他呼吸困难(SOB)原因区分开来。放射学和超声心动图有助于识别 APE,但通常无法获得。关于救护车护理人员如何准确识别 APE 患者的信息很少。目的。本研究旨在 1)描述具有 APE 临床诊断的患者的院前临床表现和管理,2)比较护理人员对 APE 的编码准确性与急诊科(ED)医疗出院诊断。
本研究包括 2011 年被救护车护理人员识别为 APE 并送往大都市医院 ED 的所有患者的回顾性队列。使用了两个数据库:救护车数据库和急诊信息系统。ED 医疗出院诊断(使用国际疾病分类和相关问题第十次修订版,澳大利亚修改版 [ICD-10-AM] 代码)作为与护理人员分配的 APE 问题代码的比较。该研究的结果是阳性预测值,即救护车数据库中被识别为患有 APE 的患者中有多少也有 ED 出院诊断为 APE,以及护理人员识别 APE 的敏感性,即 ED 出院诊断为 APE 的患者中有多少被救护车护理人员正确识别为 APE。
495 名患者因护理人员识别为主要问题代码的 APE 而被送往 ED。呼吸困难、爆裂音、高血压和胸痛是最常见的表现症状。粉红色泡沫痰很少见(APE 患者发作的 3%)。186 名患者接受了 ED 出院诊断为 APE,即阳性预测值为 41%。在 631 例 ED 表现为 APE 的患者中,护理人员识别出 186 例,即敏感性为 29%。
由于与这种情况相关的体征和症状存在差异,因此在院前环境中很难识别 APE。改善 APE 的识别对于启动适当和及时的护理至关重要。救护车护理人员在考虑可能患有 APE 的患者时,需要注意这种差异。关键词:肺水肿;急性肺水肿;急救医疗服务;救护车;护理人员。