• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
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
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
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 @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.2310/8000.2013.130842
PMID:24176459
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。

相似文献

1
Predictors of admission to hospital of patients triaged as nonurgent using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale.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)
CJEM. 2013 Nov;15(6):353-8. doi: 10.2310/8000.2013.130842.
2
Interrater agreement of Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale scores assigned by base hospital and emergency department nurses.由基地医院和急诊护士分配的加拿大急诊分诊和 acuity 量表评分的观察者间一致性。
CJEM. 2010 Jan;12(1):45-9. doi: 10.1017/s148180350001201x.
3
A determination of emergency department pre-triage times in patients not arriving by ambulance compared to widely used guideline recommendations.与广泛使用的指南建议相比,对非救护车送来患者的急诊科预分诊时间的测定。
CJEM. 2017 Jul;19(4):265-270. doi: 10.1017/cem.2016.398. Epub 2016 Dec 5.
4
Emergency department triage: do experienced nurses agree on triage scores?急诊科分诊:经验丰富的护士在分诊评分上意见一致吗?
J Emerg Med. 2012 Jun;42(6):736-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.05.085. Epub 2011 Dec 28.
5
Predictive validity of a computerized emergency triage tool.一种计算机化急诊分诊工具的预测效度。
Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Jan;14(1):16-21. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.08.021.
6
Reliability of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: interrater and intrarater agreement from a community and an academic emergency department.加拿大分诊与 acuity 量表的可靠性:来自社区及学术性急诊科的评估者间和评估者内一致性
CJEM. 2013 Jul;15(4):227-32. doi: 10.2310/8000.2013.130943.
7
Interrater agreement between nurses for the Pediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in a tertiary care center.三级护理中心护士对加拿大儿科分诊及 acuity 量表的评分者间一致性。 (注:原文中“acuity”可能有误,推测可能是“Acuity Scale”即“ acuity scale”,意为“ acuity 量表”,这里按推测翻译。)
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Dec;15(12):1262-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00268.x. Epub 2008 Oct 17.
8
The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale for children: a prospective multicenter evaluation.加拿大儿童分诊与 acuity 量表:一项前瞻性多中心评估。
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Jul;60(1):71-7.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.12.004. Epub 2012 Feb 2.
9
Prehospital Application of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale by Emergency Medical Services.紧急医疗服务机构对加拿大分诊与 acuity 量表的院前应用 。 (注:这里“acuity”结合语境可能是指“急症程度”之类的意思,但按照要求未做额外解释,直接保留原文词汇)
CJEM. 2017 Jan;19(1):26-31. doi: 10.1017/cem.2016.345. Epub 2016 Aug 10.
10
Agreement among pediatric health care professionals with the pediatric Canadian triage and acuity scale guidelines.儿科医疗保健专业人员对加拿大儿科分诊与 acuity 量表指南的认同。 (注:这里“acuity”可能有更专业准确的医学术语释义,可结合完整医学语境进一步完善,比如“ acuity scale”可能是“病情严重程度量表”之类,但仅按要求翻译为“ acuity”)
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004 Aug;20(8):514-8. doi: 10.1097/01.pec.0000136067.07081.ae.

引用本文的文献

1
Patient-reported factors associated with emergency department referrals from a co-located out-of-hours walk-in clinic in Germany: a cross-sectional observational study.德国一家位于同一地点的非工作时间随诊诊所患者报告的与急诊科转诊相关的因素:一项横断面观察性研究。
BMJ Open. 2025 Apr 3;15(4):e094312. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094312.
2
Airway, breathing, cellphone: a new vital sign?气道、呼吸、手机:一种新的生命体征?
Int J Emerg Med. 2024 Nov 22;17(1):177. doi: 10.1186/s12245-024-00769-0.
3
Factors associated with hospital revisitation within 7 days among patients discharged at triage: a case-control study.
分流出院患者7天内再次入院的相关因素:一项病例对照研究。
Eur J Emerg Med. 2025 Feb 1;32(1):22-28. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001156. Epub 2024 Jul 4.
4
Prehospital prediction of hospital admission for emergent acuity patients transported by paramedics: A population-based cohort study using machine learning.院前预测急救 acuity 患者由护理人员转运至医院收治的可能性:一项基于人群的使用机器学习的队列研究。
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 24;18(8):e0289429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289429. eCollection 2023.
5
Investigating the professional capability of triage nurses in the emergency department and its determinants: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Iran.调查急诊科分诊护士的专业能力及其决定因素:伊朗的一项多中心横断面研究。
BMC Emerg Med. 2023 Apr 1;23(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s12873-023-00809-7.
6
Using mobility status as a frailty indicator to improve the accuracy of a computerised five-level triage system among older patients in the emergency department.利用活动能力状态作为衰弱指标,提高计算机化五级别分诊系统在急诊科老年患者中的准确性。
BMC Emerg Med. 2022 May 19;22(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00646-0.
7
Examining the association between paramedic transport to the emergency department and hospital admission: a population-based cohort study.考察急救员转运至急诊科与住院之间的关联:一项基于人群的队列研究。
BMC Emerg Med. 2021 Oct 12;21(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00507-2.
8
Consistency of triage scores by presenting complaint pre- and post-implementation of a real-time electronic triage decision support tool.在实施实时电子分诊决策支持工具前后,根据就诊主诉进行分诊评分的一致性。
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 Apr 21;1(5):747-756. doi: 10.1002/emp2.12062. eCollection 2020 Oct.
9
Predictive factors for hospitalization of nonurgent patients in the emergency department.急诊科非紧急患者住院的预测因素。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jun;95(26):e4053. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004053.