Suppr超能文献

中国大陆四级中文急救分诊量表的信度和效度:一项多中心评估。

Reliability and validity of the four-level Chinese emergency triage scale in mainland China: A multicenter assessment.

机构信息

The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine(SAHZU), No. 88 Jiefang road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310009, China.

The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine(SAHZU), No. 88 Jiefang road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310009, China.

出版信息

Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Jan;101:103447. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103447. Epub 2019 Oct 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

An effective emergency triage system is lacking in mainland China. The Chinese Emergency Triage Scale (CETS) was developed based on vital complaints and vital parameters, according to Chinese data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the CETS by emergency department (ED) nurses in eight EDs in mainland China.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional multi-center study was conducted.

SETTINGS

Eight EDs in the eastern, western, northern, and central areas of mainland China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 51 ED nurses and 8000 active ED patients participated in the study between May and September 2018 in eight EDs.

METHODS

Standardized triage scenarios and active patients were assigned to nurses who used the CETS for evaluative purposes. Accuracy was defined by concordance with the key for the scenarios and was calculated as percentages. Inter-rater reliability was measured by weighted κ to compare the triage nurse's rating with the research nurse's acuity level for each patient. The triage time and clinical outcome of 1000 active patients per site also were collected. The criterion-related validity of the CETS was evaluated; criteria included ED mortality, number of patients discharged, and admission to ICU or general ward. The relationship between the CETS acuity levels triaged by the research nurse and four possible outcomes was assessed with a cross-classification table, using a chi-square test. The ability of the CETS to predict ED mortality was assessed via the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Mean pooled accuracy from all sites was 89.4% (95% CI = 86.9%-91.8%), and the proportion of over-triage slightly exceeded under-triage (6.5% vs. 4.1%). There was no difference in accuracy between sites or according to nurse experience. Inter-rater reliability values for triage nurses and research nurses were 0.96 (95% CI = 0.95-0.97), based on the quadratic weight κ. Trauma cases were assigned to triage with greater accuracy than were nontrauma cases, both for the scenarios and for active patients. The average triage time of ED nurses in all sites was 151.5 ± 26.3 s, using the computer-based triage instrument. The chi-square test showed that there was a significant difference in triage time between the CETS levels (p < 0.001). The AUC was 0.968 (95% CI = 0.958-0.979).

CONCLUSIONS

The CETS is a reliable system for ED triage and can promote rapid and effective triage in mainland China.

摘要

背景

中国大陆缺乏有效的急救分诊系统。根据中国的数据,《中国急诊分诊量表》(CETS)是基于生命体征和生命体征参数制定的。

目的

本研究旨在评估该量表在中国大陆 8 家急诊科的急诊科护士中的可靠性和有效性。

设计

这是一项横断面多中心研究。

地点

中国大陆东部、西部、北部和中部的 8 家急诊科。

参与者

2018 年 5 月至 9 月,8 家急诊科的 51 名急诊科护士和 8000 名活跃急诊科患者参与了研究。

方法

将标准化的分诊场景和活跃患者分配给使用 CETS 进行评估的护士。准确性通过与场景关键信息的一致性来定义,并以百分比表示。使用加权 κ 来比较分诊护士的评分与每位患者的研究护士的严重程度级别,以测量内部评估者之间的可靠性。还收集了每个地点 1000 名活跃患者的分诊时间和临床结果。使用交叉分类表,通过卡方检验评估 CETS 的校标相关性效度。标准包括急诊科死亡率、出院人数和入住 ICU 或普通病房的人数。使用交叉分类表和卡方检验评估研究护士分诊的 CETS 严重程度水平与四个可能结果之间的关系。通过受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)评估 CETS 预测急诊科死亡率的能力。

结果

所有地点的平均综合准确率为 89.4%(95%CI=86.9%-91.8%),且分诊过度的比例略高于分诊不足的比例(6.5%比 4.1%)。不同地点或根据护士经验,准确率没有差异。基于二次加权κ,分诊护士和研究护士的内部评估者可靠性值为 0.96(95%CI=0.95-0.97)。创伤病例的分诊准确率高于非创伤病例,无论是在场景中还是在活跃患者中。所有地点的急诊科护士平均分诊时间为 151.5±26.3 s,使用基于计算机的分诊工具。卡方检验显示 CETS 水平之间的分诊时间有显著差异(p<0.001)。AUC 为 0.968(95%CI=0.958-0.979)。

结论

CETS 是一种可靠的急诊科分诊系统,可促进中国大陆快速有效的分诊。

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