Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Centre for Prehospital Research, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, SE-501 90, Borås, Sweden.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Dec 27;26(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s13049-018-0579-x.
In patients who call for the emergency medical service (EMS), there is a knowledge gap with regard to the final assessment after arriving at hospital and its association with field assessment.
In a representative population of patients who call for the EMS, to describe a) the final assessment at hospital discharge and b) the association between the assessment in the field and the assessment at hospital discharge.
Thirty randomly selected patients reached by a dispatched ambulance each month between 1 Jan and 31 Dec 2016 in one urban, one rural and one mixed ambulance organisation in Sweden took part in the study. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, dead on arrival, transport between health-care facilities and secondary missions. Each patient received a unique code based on the ICD code at hospital discharge and field assessment.
In all, 1080 patients took part in the study, of which 1076 (99.6%) had a field assessment code. A total of 894 patients (83%) were brought to a hospital and an ICD code (ICD-10-SE) was available in 814 patients (91% of these cases and 76% of all cases included in the study). According to these ICD codes, the most frequent conditions were infection (15%), trauma (15%) and vascular disease (9%). The most frequent body localisation of the condition was the thorax (24%), head (16%) and abdomen (13%). In 118 patients (14% of all ICD codes), the condition according to the ICD code was judged as time critical. Among these cases, field assessment was assessed as potentially appropriate in 75% and potentially inappropriate in 12%.
Among patients reached by ambulance in Sweden, 83% were transported to hospital and, among them, 14% had a time-critical condition. In these cases, the majority were assessed in the field as potentially appropriate, but 12% had a potentially inappropriate field assessment. The consequences of these findings need to be further explored.
在呼叫紧急医疗服务(EMS)的患者中,存在到达医院后的最终评估及其与现场评估之间的知识差距。
在呼叫 EMS 的代表性人群中,描述 a)出院时的最终评估,b)现场评估与出院时评估之间的关联。
2016 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间,在瑞典的一个城市、一个农村和一个混合救护车组织中,每月随机选择 30 名由调度救护车送达的患者参加研究。排除标准为年龄<18 岁、到达时死亡、在医疗机构之间转运和次要任务。每位患者根据出院时和现场评估的 ICD 代码获得一个唯一的代码。
共有 1080 名患者参加了研究,其中 1076 名(99.6%)有现场评估代码。共有 894 名患者(83%)被送往医院,814 名患者(这些病例的 91%和研究中所有病例的 76%)有 ICD 代码(ICD-10-SE)。根据这些 ICD 代码,最常见的疾病是感染(15%)、创伤(15%)和血管疾病(9%)。最常见的疾病部位是胸部(24%)、头部(16%)和腹部(13%)。在 118 名患者(所有 ICD 代码的 14%)中,根据 ICD 代码判断病情为时间关键。在这些病例中,75%的现场评估被评估为潜在合适,12%为潜在不合适。
在瑞典被救护车送达的患者中,83%被送往医院,其中 14%的患者有时间关键的病情。在这些情况下,大多数在现场被评估为潜在合适,但 12%的现场评估为潜在不合适。需要进一步探讨这些发现的后果。