Suppr超能文献

使用加拿大分诊与 acuity 量表被分诊为非紧急情况的患者入院的预测因素。 (注:原文中“acuity”可能有误,推测可能是“Acuity Scale”应为“严重程度量表”,这里按原文翻译)

Predictors of admission to hospital of patients triaged as nonurgent using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale.

作者信息

Lin Daren, Worster Andrew

出版信息

CJEM. 2013 Nov;15(6):353-8. doi: 10.2310/8000.2013.130842.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors known prior to triage that might have predicted hospital admission for patients triaged by the Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS) as level 5 (CTAS 5, nonurgent) and to determine whether inappropriate triage occurred in the admitted CTAS 5 patients.

METHODS

We reviewed the triage records of patients triaged as CTAS 5 at the emergency departments (EDs) of three tertiary care hospitals between April 2002 and September 2009. Two triage nurses unaware of the study objective independently assigned the CTAS level in 20% of randomly selected CTAS 5 patients who were admitted. We used the kappa statistic (κ) to measure the agreement among the raters in CTAS level between the assessment of the research nurses and the original triage assessment and regression analysis to identify independent predictors of admission to hospital.

RESULTS

Of the 37,416 CTAS 5 patients included in this study, 587 (1.6%) were admitted. Agreement on CTAS assignment in CTAS 5 patients who were admitted was κ -0.9, (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.96 to -0.84). Age over 65 (odds ratio [OR] 5.46, 95% CI 4.57 to 6.53) and arrival by ambulance (OR 7.42, 95% CI 6.15 to 8.96) predicted hospital admission in CTAS 5 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the CTAS 5 patients who were subsequently admitted to hospital may have qualified for a higher triage category. Two potential modifiers, age over 65 and arrival by ambulance, may have improved the prediction of admission in CTAS 5 patients. However, the consistent application of existing CTAS criteria may also be important to prevent incorrect triage.

摘要

目的

确定在分诊前已知的可能预测被加拿大分诊 acuity 量表(CTAS)分诊为 5 级(CTAS 5,非紧急)的患者住院情况的因素,并确定在被收治的 CTAS 5 级患者中是否发生了不适当的分诊。

方法

我们回顾了 2002 年 4 月至 2009 年 9 月期间在三家三级护理医院急诊科被分诊为 CTAS 5 级的患者的分诊记录。两名不知道研究目的的分诊护士独立地对 20%随机选择的被收治的 CTAS 5 级患者进行 CTAS 级别评定。我们使用 kappa 统计量(κ)来衡量研究护士的评估与原始分诊评估之间在 CTAS 级别上的评定者间一致性,并使用回归分析来确定住院的独立预测因素。

结果

本研究纳入的 37416 例 CTAS 5 级患者中,587 例(1.6%)被收治。被收治的 CTAS 5 级患者在 CTAS 评定上的一致性为 κ -0.9,(95%置信区间[CI] -0.96 至 -0.84)。65 岁以上(优势比[OR] 5.46,95%CI 4.57 至 6.53)和乘坐救护车到达(OR 7.42,95%CI 6.15 至 8.96)可预测 CTAS 5 级患者的住院情况。

结论

大多数随后被收治入院的 CTAS 5 级患者可能符合更高的分诊类别。两个潜在的修正因素,65 岁以上和乘坐救护车到达,可能改善了对 CTAS 5 级患者住院情况的预测。然而,持续应用现有的 CTAS 标准对于防止错误分诊也可能很重要。

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