Choi Se Jin, Oh Moon Young, Kim Na Rae, Jung Yoo Joong, Ro Young Sun, Shin Sang Do
Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
Emerg Med Australas. 2017 Dec;29(6):697-711. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12840. Epub 2017 Aug 7.
The study aims to compare the trauma care systems in Asian countries.
Asian countries were categorised into three groups; 'lower middle-income country', 'upper middle-income country' and 'high-income country'. The Medline/PubMed database was searched for articles published from January 2005 to December 2014 using relevant key words. Articles were excluded if they examined a specific injury mechanism, referred to a specific age group, and/or did not have full text available. We extracted information and variables on pre-hospital and hospital care factors, and regionalised system factors and compared them across countries.
A total of 46 articles were identified from 13 countries, including Pakistan, India, Vietnam and Indonesia from lower middle-income countries; the Islamic Republic of Iran, Thailand, China, Malaysia from upper middle-income countries; and Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore from high-income countries. Trauma patients were transported via various methods. In six of the 13 countries, less than 20% of trauma patients were transported by ambulance. Pre-hospital trauma teams primarily comprised emergency medical technicians and paramedics, except in Thailand and China, where they included mainly physicians. In Iran, Pakistan and Vietnam, the proportion of patients who died before reaching hospital exceeded 50%. In only three of the 13 countries was it reported that trauma surgeons were available. In only five of the 13 countries was there a nationwide trauma registry.
Trauma care systems were poorly developed and unorganised in most of the selected 13 Asian countries, with the exception of a few highly developed countries.
本研究旨在比较亚洲国家的创伤护理系统。
亚洲国家被分为三组；“中低收入国家”、“中高收入国家”和“高收入国家”。使用相关关键词在Medline/PubMed数据库中检索2005年1月至2014年12月发表的文章。如果文章研究的是特定的损伤机制、涉及特定年龄组和/或没有全文，则将其排除。我们提取了院前和医院护理因素以及区域化系统因素的信息和变量，并在各国之间进行了比较。
共从13个国家识别出46篇文章，其中中低收入国家包括巴基斯坦、印度、越南和印度尼西亚；中高收入国家包括伊朗伊斯兰共和国、泰国、中国、马来西亚；高收入国家包括沙特阿拉伯、韩国、日本、中国香港和新加坡。创伤患者通过多种方式转运。在13个国家中的6个国家，不到20%的创伤患者通过救护车转运。院前创伤团队主要由急救医疗技术人员和护理人员组成，但在泰国和中国，主要由医生组成。在伊朗、巴基斯坦和越南，未到达医院就死亡的患者比例超过50%。在13个国家中，只有3个国家报告有创伤外科医生。在13个国家中，只有5个国家有全国性的创伤登记处。
在所选的13个亚洲国家中，除了少数高度发达国家外，大多数国家的创伤护理系统发展不完善且缺乏组织。
