Research and Development Unit, FinnHEMS Ltd, Vantaa, Finland.
Department of Perioperative Services, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
BMC Emerg Med. 2020 May 25;20(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12873-020-00338-7.
Several scores and codes are used in prehospital clinical quality registries but little is known of their reliability. The aim of this study is to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification system, HEMS benefit score (HBS), International Classification of Primary Care, second edition (ICPC-2) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status in a helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) clinical quality registry (CQR).
All physicians and paramedics working in HEMS in Finland and responsible for patient registration were asked to participate in this study. The participants entered data of six written fictional missions in the national CQR. The inter-rater reliability of the ASA-PS, HBS, ICPC-2 and ECOG were evaluated using an overall agreement and free-marginal multi-rater kappa (Κ).
All 59 Finnish HEMS physicians and paramedics were invited to participate in this study, of which 43 responded and 16 did not answer. One participant was excluded due to unfinished data entering. ASA-PS had an overall agreement of 40.2% and Κ of 0.28 in this study. HBS had an overall agreement of 44.7% and Κ of 0.39. ICPC-2 coding had an overall agreement of 51.5% and Κ of 0.47. ECOG had an overall agreement of 49.6% and Κ of 0.40.
This study suggests a marked inter-rater unreliability in prehospital patient scoring and coding even in a relatively uniform group of practitioners working in a highly focused environment. This indicates that the scores and codes should be specifically designed or adapted for prehospital use, and the users should be provided with clear and thorough instructions on how to use them.
在院前临床质量登记处使用了几种评分和代码,但对其可靠性知之甚少。本研究的目的是评估美国麻醉师协会身体状况(ASA-PS)分类系统、HEMS 获益评分(HBS)、国际初级保健分类第二版(ICPC-2)和东部合作肿瘤学组(ECOG)在直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)临床质量登记处(CQR)中的评分者间可靠性。
所有在芬兰从事 HEMS 工作并负责患者登记的医生和护理人员都被要求参加这项研究。参与者在全国 CQR 中输入了六个书面虚构任务的数据。使用总体一致性和自由边际多评分者 Kappa(Κ)评估 ASA-PS、HBS、ICPC-2 和 ECOG 的评分者间可靠性。
所有 59 名芬兰 HEMS 医生和护理人员都被邀请参加这项研究,其中 43 名回应,16 名未回复。由于数据输入不完整,一名参与者被排除在外。在这项研究中,ASA-PS 的总体一致性为 40.2%,Κ 为 0.28。HBS 的总体一致性为 44.7%,Κ 为 0.39。ICPC-2 编码的总体一致性为 51.5%,Κ 为 0.47。ECOG 的总体一致性为 49.6%,Κ 为 0.40。
即使在一个工作环境高度集中的相对统一的医生群体中,这项研究也表明院前患者评分和编码的评分者间可靠性存在显著差异。这表明评分和代码应专门为院前使用而设计或改编,并应向用户提供如何使用它们的明确和详尽说明。