Suppr超能文献

运用创伤患者现场分类指南进行分诊不足和分诊过度:系统评价。

Under-Triage and Over-Triage Using the Field Triage Guidelines for Injured Patients: A Systematic Review.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2023;27(1):38-45. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2022.2043963. Epub 2022 Mar 4.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The Field Triage Guidelines (FTG) are used across North America to identify seriously injured patients for transport to appropriate level trauma centers, with a goal of under-triaging no more than 5% and over-triaging between 25% and 35%. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on under-triage and over-triage rates of the FTG.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the FTG performance. Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Two investigators dual-reviewed eligibility of abstracts and full-text. We included studies evaluating under- or over-triage of patients using the FTG in the prehospital setting. We excluded studies not reporting an outcome of under- or over-triage, studies evaluating other triage tools, or studies of triage not in the prehospital setting. Two investigators independently assessed the risk of bias for each included article. The primary accuracy measures to assess the FTG were under-triage, defined as seriously injured patients transported to non-trauma hospitals (1-sensitivity), and over-triage, defined as non-injured patients transported to trauma hospitals (1-specificity). Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesized qualitatively.

RESULTS

We screened 2,418 abstracts, reviewed 315 full-text publications, and identified 17 studies that evaluated the accuracy of the FTG. Among eight studies evaluating the entire FTG (steps 1-4), under-triage rates ranged from 1.6% to 72.0% and were higher for older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (20.1-72.0%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (15.9-34.8%) compared to all ages (1.6-33.8%). Over-triage rates ranged from 9.9% to 87.4% and were higher for all ages (12.2-87.4%) compared to older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (9.9-48.2%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (28.0-33.6%). Under-triage was lower in studies strictly applying the FTG retrospectively (1.6-34.8%) compared to as-practiced (10.5-72.0%), while over-triage was higher retrospectively (64.2-87.4%) compared to as-practiced (9.9-48.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that under-triage, while improved if the FTG is strictly applied, remains above targets, with higher rates of under-triage in both children and older adults.

摘要

目的

北美各地使用现场分诊指南(FTG)来识别需要送往适当级别创伤中心的重伤患者,目标是分诊不足的比例不超过 5%,分诊过度的比例在 25%至 35%之间。我们的目的是系统地回顾关于 FTG 的分诊不足和过度分诊率的文献。

方法

我们对 FTG 的性能进行了系统回顾。在 2011 年 1 月至 2021 年 2 月期间,我们在 Ovid Medline、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 数据库中搜索了发表的研究。两名调查员对摘要和全文的入选资格进行了双重审查。我们纳入了评估 FTG 在院前环境中分诊不足或过度分诊的患者的研究。我们排除了未报告分诊不足或过度分诊结果的研究、评估其他分诊工具的研究或不在院前环境中进行分诊的研究。两名调查员独立评估了每篇纳入文章的偏倚风险。评估 FTG 的主要准确性指标是分诊不足,定义为严重受伤患者被送往非创伤医院(1-灵敏度),以及分诊过度,定义为无损伤患者被送往创伤医院(1-特异性)。由于存在异质性,结果以定性方式进行综合。

结果

我们筛选了 2418 篇摘要,回顾了 315 篇全文出版物,并确定了 17 项评估 FTG 准确性的研究。在八项评估整个 FTG(步骤 1-4)的研究中,分诊不足率范围为 1.6%至 72.0%,年龄较大(≥55 岁或≥65 岁)成年人(20.1%-72.0%)和儿科(<15 岁)患者(15.9%-34.8%)的比例较高,而所有年龄段(1.6%-33.8%)的比例较低。分诊过度率范围为 9.9%至 87.4%,所有年龄段(12.2%-87.4%)的比例均高于年龄较大(≥55 岁或≥65 岁)成年人(9.9%-48.2%)和儿科(<15 岁)患者(28.0%-33.6%)。如果严格按照 FTG 回顾性应用,分诊不足率较低(1.6%-34.8%),而如果实际应用,分诊不足率较高(10.5%-72.0%)。另一方面,如果严格按照 FTG 回顾性应用,分诊过度率较高(64.2%-87.4%),而如果实际应用,分诊过度率较低(9.9%-48.2%)。

结论

有证据表明,虽然如果严格应用 FTG,分诊不足的情况有所改善,但仍高于目标,儿童和老年人的分诊不足率更高。

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