• 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

急诊环境中(快速序贯器官衰竭评估)工具的评估:护士认知及其对患者护理的影响

Evaluation of the (qSOFA) Tool in the Emergency Department Setting: Nurse Perception and the Impact on Patient Care.

作者信息

Proffitt Robin D, Hooper Gwendolyn

机构信息

Clinical Education Department, Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tennessee (Dr Proffitt); and Capstone College of Nursing, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa (Dr Hooper).

出版信息

Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2020 Jan/Mar;42(1):54-62. doi: 10.1097/TME.0000000000000281.

DOI:10.1097/TME.0000000000000281
PMID:32000191
Abstract

In the emergency department (ED) setting, nurses perform the initial evaluation of patients, thereby placing ED nurses in a prime position to recognize sepsis and greatly influence prompt implementation of treatment. The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) tool was first introduced as part of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) as a predictor of both increased mortality and longer intensive care unit (ICU) stays. Designed for use outside the ICU, the qSOFA tool functions as a simple bedside tool to quickly identify patients at risk for developing sepsis. As a method to improve detection of sepsis in the ED, an evidence-based screening tool based on the qSOFA criteria was developed. The project implemented over a 14-day period resulted in 106 surveys. Average time from patients entering the ED to actual triage evaluation was 13 min, and the median time from the completion of triage evaluation to the completion of the qSOFA screening tool was 4 min. To determine acceptance of the qSOFA tool for use in detecting sepsis in the ED, a second aim was to evaluate ED nurses' perceptions of the effectiveness, timeliness, and ease of use of the qSOFA evaluation tool. Anonymous postsurvey results revealed that participants were moderately familiar with the qSOFA tool and found it overall easy to complete. The majority of participants stated only a slight likelihood of using the qSOFA tool if it were implemented into clinical practice.

摘要

在急诊科,护士对患者进行初步评估,因此急诊科护士处于识别脓毒症的首要位置,并对及时实施治疗有很大影响。快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)工具最初作为脓毒症和脓毒性休克第三次国际共识定义(Sepsis-3)的一部分被引入,作为死亡率增加和重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间延长的预测指标。qSOFA工具设计用于ICU之外,是一种简单的床边工具,用于快速识别有发生脓毒症风险的患者。作为一种改善急诊科脓毒症检测的方法,开发了一种基于qSOFA标准的循证筛查工具。该项目在14天内实施,共进行了106次调查。患者从进入急诊科到实际分诊评估的平均时间为13分钟,从分诊评估完成到完成qSOFA筛查工具的中位时间为4分钟。为了确定qSOFA工具在急诊科用于检测脓毒症的可接受性,第二个目标是评估急诊科护士对qSOFA评估工具的有效性、及时性和易用性的看法。匿名调查结果显示,参与者对qSOFA工具中等熟悉,并发现总体上易于完成。大多数参与者表示,如果qSOFA工具在临床实践中实施,使用的可能性很小。

相似文献

1
Evaluation of the (qSOFA) Tool in the Emergency Department Setting: Nurse Perception and the Impact on Patient Care.急诊环境中(快速序贯器官衰竭评估)工具的评估:护士认知及其对患者护理的影响
Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2020 Jan/Mar;42(1):54-62. doi: 10.1097/TME.0000000000000281.
2
Low sensitivity of qSOFA, SIRS criteria and sepsis definition to identify infected patients at risk of complication in the prehospital setting and at the emergency department triage.qSOFA、SIRS 标准和脓毒症定义对识别院前环境和急诊科分诊中感染风险患者的并发症的敏感性较低。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 3;25(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13049-017-0449-y.
3
Impact of a qSOFA-based triage procedure on antibiotic timing in ED patients with sepsis: A prospective interventional study.基于 qSOFA 的分诊程序对 ED 脓毒症患者抗生素使用时机的影响:一项前瞻性干预研究。
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Mar;38(3):477-484. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.05.022. Epub 2019 May 10.
4
Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality - a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department.快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分在预测严重脓毒症及死亡率方面表现不佳——一项针对急诊科收治的感染患者的前瞻性研究。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Jun 9;25(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s13049-017-0399-4.
5
Clinical Scores and Formal Triage for Screening of Sepsis and Adverse Outcomes on Arrival in an Emergency Department All-Comer Cohort.急诊科全人群队列中用于筛查脓毒症及入院时不良结局的临床评分与正式分诊
J Emerg Med. 2019 Oct;57(4):453-460.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.06.036. Epub 2019 Sep 26.
6
Pre-hospital qSOFA as a predictor of sepsis and mortality.院前 qSOFA 作为脓毒症和死亡率的预测指标。
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;37(7):1273-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.09.025. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
7
Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit.qSOFA与SIRS用于预测非重症监护病房疑似脓毒症患者不良结局的比较。
Crit Care. 2017 Mar 26;21(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5.
8
Comparison of SIRS, qSOFA, and NEWS for the early identification of sepsis in the Emergency Department.比较 SIRS、qSOFA 和 NEWS 在急诊科早期识别脓毒症中的作用。
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Aug;37(8):1490-1497. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.10.058. Epub 2018 Nov 7.
9
Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research.2016年脓毒症及脓毒性休克共识定义对未来脓毒症研究的潜在影响。
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Oct;70(4):553-561.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.04.007.
10
Sepsis patients in the emergency department: stratification using the Clinical Impression Score, Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction score or quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score?急诊科脓毒症患者:使用临床印象评分、易感性、感染、反应和器官功能障碍评分或快速序贯器官衰竭评估评分进行分层?
Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;25(5):328-334. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000460.

引用本文的文献

1
The Predictors of Perceived Barriers and Facilitators of Applying Sepsis Six Guidelines Among Critical Care Nurses.重症监护护士应用脓毒症六项指南时感知到的障碍和促进因素的预测因素
Cureus. 2024 Mar 31;16(3):e57355. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57355. eCollection 2024 Mar.
2
Sepsis assessment and management in critically Ill adults: A systematic review.严重感染患者的脓毒症评估和管理:系统评价。
PLoS One. 2022 Jul 1;17(7):e0270711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270711. eCollection 2022.
3
Situational Awareness in Acute Patient Deterioration: Identifying Student Time to Task.
急性患者病情恶化时的情境意识:确定学生完成任务的时间。
Nurse Educ. 2021;46(2):82-86. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000968.