Vassallo James, Smith Jason E, Bruijns Stevan R, Wallis Lee A
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; Institute of Naval Medicine, Alverstoke, Gosport, UK.
Emergency Department, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK; Academic Department of Military Emergency Medicine, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (Research & Academia), Medical Directorate, Joint Medical Command, Birmingham, UK.
Injury. 2016 Sep;47(9):1898-902. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.06.022. Epub 2016 Jun 23.
Triage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents. The process currently relies on algorithms assigning patients to specific triage categories; there is, however, little guidance as to what these categories represent. Previously, these algorithms were validated against injury severity scores, but it is accepted now that the need for life-saving intervention is a more important outcome. However, the definition of a life-saving intervention is unclear. The aim of this study was to define what constitutes a life-saving intervention, in order to facilitate the definition of an adult priority one patient during the definitive care phase of a major incident.
We conducted a modified Delphi study, using a panel of subject matter experts drawn from the United Kingdom and Republic of South Africa with a background in Emergency Care or Major Incident Management. The study was conducted using an online survey tool, over three rounds between July and December 2013. A four point Likert scale was used to seek consensus for 50 possible interventions, with a consensus level set at 70%.
24 participants completed all three rounds of the Delphi, with 32 life-saving interventions reaching consensus.
This study provides a consensus definition of what constitutes a life-saving intervention in the context of an adult, priority one patient during the definitive care phase of a major incident. The definition will contribute to further research into major incident triage, specifically in terms of validation of an adult major incident triage tool.
分诊是重大事件有效管理中的一项关键原则。目前该过程依赖算法将患者分配到特定的分诊类别;然而,对于这些类别代表什么几乎没有指导意见。以前,这些算法是根据损伤严重程度评分进行验证的,但现在人们公认,需要进行挽救生命的干预是一个更重要的结果。然而,挽救生命的干预的定义并不明确。本研究的目的是确定什么构成挽救生命的干预,以便在重大事件的确定性治疗阶段便于定义成年一级优先患者。
我们进行了一项改良的德尔菲研究,使用了一个由来自英国和南非共和国的具有急诊护理或重大事件管理背景的主题专家小组。该研究使用在线调查工具,于2013年7月至12月期间分三轮进行。采用四点李克特量表就50种可能的干预措施寻求共识,共识水平设定为70%。
24名参与者完成了德尔菲研究的所有三轮,32种挽救生命的干预措施达成了共识。
本研究为在重大事件的确定性治疗阶段成年一级优先患者的背景下什么构成挽救生命的干预提供了一个共识定义。该定义将有助于对重大事件分诊的进一步研究,特别是在成年重大事件分诊工具的验证方面。