Suppr超能文献

从双层创伤小组激活模式转变为单层创伤小组激活模式:一项观察性队列研究,调查分诊不足对临床的影响

Changing from a two-tiered to a one-tiered trauma team activation protocol: a before-after observational cohort study investigating the clinical impact of undertriage.

机构信息

Section for Traumatology; Surgical Clinic, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, PO Box 8100, 4068, Stavanger, Norway.

出版信息

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Oct;48(5):3803-3811. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01696-y. Epub 2021 May 22.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the change in TTA protocol from a two-tier to one-tier, with focus on undertriage and mortality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A before-after observational cohort study based on data extracted from the Stavanger University Hospital Trauma registry in the transition period from two-tier to a one-tier TTA protocol over two consecutive 1-year periods (2017-2018). Comparative analysis was done between the two time-periods for descriptive characteristics and outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were undertriage and mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period 1234 patients were included in the registry, of which 721 (58%) were in the two-tier and 513 (42%) in the one-tier group. About one in five patients (224/1234) were severely injured (ISS > 15). Median age was 39 in the two-tier period and 43 years in the one-tier period (p = 0.229). Median ISS was 5 for the two-tier period vs 9, in the one-tier period (p = 0.001). The undertriage of severely injured patients in the two-tier period was 18/122 (15%), compared to 31/102 (30%) of patients in the one-tier period (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.8-4.52). Overall mortality increased significantly between the two TTA protocols, from 2.5 to 4.7% (p = 0.033), OR 0.51 (0.28-0.96) CONCLUSION: A protocol change from two-tiered TTA to one-tiered TTA increased the undertriage in our trauma system. A two-tiered TTA may be beneficial for better patient care.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较从两重分诊改为一重分诊方案时的效果,重点关注分诊不足和死亡率。

材料与方法

这是一项基于斯塔万格大学医院创伤登记处数据的前后观察性队列研究,研究对象为在连续两个 1 年期间(2017-2018 年)从两重分诊改为一重分诊方案的过渡期患者。对两个时间段的描述性特征和结果进行了比较分析。主要观察指标为分诊不足和死亡率。

结果

在研究期间,共有 1234 例患者被纳入登记处,其中 721 例(58%)处于两重分诊组,513 例(42%)处于一重分诊组。约五分之一(224/1234)的患者伤势严重(ISS>15)。两重分诊组的中位年龄为 39 岁,一重分诊组为 43 岁(p=0.229)。两重分诊组的 ISS 中位数为 5,一重分诊组为 9(p=0.001)。两重分诊组严重受伤患者的分诊不足率为 18/122(15%),而一重分诊组为 31/102(30%)(OR=2.5;95%CI 1.8-4.52)。两个分诊方案之间的总体死亡率显著增加,从 2.5%增加到 4.7%(p=0.033),OR 0.51(0.28-0.96)。

结论

从两重分诊改为一重分诊方案增加了我们创伤系统的分诊不足。两重分诊方案可能对改善患者护理有益。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e86b/9532293/0bcf8871c235/68_2021_1696_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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