Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Pre Hospen-Centre for Prehospital Research, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020 Aug 17;28(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00766-1.
In Sweden, the rapid emergency triage and treatment system (RETTS-A) is used in the pre-hospital setting. With RETTS-A, patients triaged to the lowest level could safely be referred to a lower level of care. The national early warning score (NEWS) has also shown promising results internationally. However, a knowledge gap in optimal triage in the pre-hospital setting persists. This study aimed to evaluate RETTS-A performance, compare RETTS-A with NEWS and NEWS 2, and evaluate the emergency medical service (EMS) nurse's field assessment with the physician's final hospital diagnosis.
A prospective, observational study including patients (≥16 years old) transported to hospital by the Gothenburg EMS in 2016. Three comparisons were made: 1) Combined RETTS-A levels orange and red (high acuity) compared to a predefined reference emergency, 2) RETTS-A high acuity compared to NEWS and NEWS 2 score ≥ 5, and 3) Classification of pre-hospital nurse's field assessment compared to hospital physician's diagnosis. Outcomes of the time-sensitive conditions, mortality and hospitalisation were examined. The statistical tests included Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test, and several binary classification tests were determined.
Overall, 4465 patients were included (median age 69 years; 52% women). High acuity RETTS-A triage showed a sensitivity of 81% in prediction of the reference patient with a specificity of 64%. Sensitivity in detecting a time-sensitive condition was highest with RETTS-A (73%), compared with NEWS (37%) and NEWS 2 (35%), and specificity was highest with NEWS 2 (83%) when compared with RETTS-A (54%). The negative predictive value was higher in RETTS-A (94%) compared to NEWS (91%) and NEWS 2 (92%). Eleven per cent of the final diagnoses were classified as time-sensitive while the nurse's field assessment was appropriate in 84% of these cases.
In the pre-hospital triage of EMS patients, RETTS-A showed sensitivity that was twice as high as that of both NEWS and NEWS 2 in detecting time-sensitive conditions, at the expense of lower specificity. However, the proportion of correctly classified low risk triaged patients (green/yellow) was higher in RETTS-A. The nurse's field assessment of time-sensitive conditions was appropriate in the majority of cases.
在瑞典,快速紧急分类和治疗系统(RETTS-A)用于院前环境。使用 RETTS-A,分诊到最低级别的患者可以安全地转至较低级别的护理。全国早期预警评分(NEWS)在国际上也显示出良好的效果。然而,在院前环境中最佳分类的知识差距仍然存在。本研究旨在评估 RETTS-A 的性能,比较 RETTS-A 与 NEWS 和 NEWS 2,并评估急诊医疗服务(EMS)护士的现场评估与医生的最终医院诊断。
一项前瞻性观察性研究,纳入 2016 年由哥德堡 EMS 转运至医院的患者(≥16 岁)。进行了三项比较:1)橙色和红色(高急症)综合 RETTS-A 水平与预定的参考急诊相比,2)与 NEWS 和 NEWS 2 评分≥5 相比,RETTS-A 高急症,3)院前护士现场评估分类与医院医生诊断相比。检查了时间敏感条件、死亡率和住院率的结果。统计检验包括曼-惠特尼 U 检验和 Fisher 确切检验,并确定了几种二分类检验。
总体而言,纳入了 4465 名患者(中位数年龄 69 岁;52%为女性)。高急症 RETTS-A 分诊对参考患者的敏感性为 81%,特异性为 64%。在检测时间敏感条件方面,RETTS-A 的敏感性最高(73%),与 NEWS(37%)和 NEWS 2(35%)相比,特异性最高的是 NEWS 2(83%)与 RETTS-A(54%)相比。阴性预测值在 RETTS-A 中更高(94%)与 NEWS(91%)和 NEWS 2(92%)相比。11%的最终诊断被归类为时间敏感,而护士的现场评估在这些病例中的 84%是合适的。
在 EMS 患者的院前分诊中,RETTS-A 的敏感性是 NEWS 和 NEWS 2 的两倍,可检测到时间敏感情况,特异性较低。然而,正确分类低风险分诊患者(绿色/黄色)的比例在 RETTS-A 中更高。护士对时间敏感情况的现场评估在大多数情况下是合适的。