Suppr超能文献

随着在急诊科室的临床经验的增加,死亡证明的错误是否会减少?

Do Death Certificate Errors Decrease as Clinical Experience in an Emergency Department Increases?

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Dong-A University Hospital, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

出版信息

J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Feb 26;39(7):e62. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e62.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between clinical experience and death certificate (DC) errors by analyzing DCs written by experienced emergency physicians (EPs).

METHODS

DCs issued by four experienced EPs over a 10-year period were retrospectively reviewed. DC errors were divided into major and minor errors based on whether they affected the cause of death (COD) determination. The errors were judged through first and second evaluations. Basic information regarding DCs and 10-year changes in DC errors were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 505 DCs were analyzed, with an average of 34 to 70 for each study year. The number of CODs written in the DCs tended to decrease over time. The presentation of major DC errors did not show a tendency to change over time. However, the sum of the major and minor errors tended to increase over time. Secondary conditions as the underlying COD tended to increase, and the incompatible causal relationships between CODs tended to decrease over time in the detailed analysis of major errors. The increasing tendency for incorrect other significant conditions, incorrect type of accident, incorrect intention of the external cause, no record of the trauma mechanism, and record of the trauma mechanism without another COD were found in the detailed analysis of minor errors.

CONCLUSION

DC errors did not decrease as clinical experience increased. Education to reduce DC errors and a feedback process for written DCs are necessary, regardless of clinical experience.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在通过分析经验丰富的急诊医师(EP)撰写的死亡证明(DC)来评估临床经验与 DC 错误之间的关系。

方法

回顾性分析了四位经验丰富的 EP 在 10 年内签发的 DC。根据是否影响死因(COD)判断,将 DC 错误分为主要错误和次要错误。通过第一和第二次评估进行错误判断。分析了 DC 的基本信息以及 10 年来 DC 错误的变化。

结果

共分析了 505 份 DC,每个研究年的平均数量为 34 至 70 份。DC 中 COD 的书写数量随时间呈下降趋势。主要 DC 错误的出现没有随时间变化的趋势。然而,主要和次要错误的总和随时间呈上升趋势。次要条件作为根本 COD 的情况趋于增加,并且在对主要错误的详细分析中,COD 之间不兼容的因果关系随时间呈下降趋势。在对次要错误的详细分析中,发现了不正确的其他重要情况、不正确的事故类型、不正确的外部原因意图、没有记录创伤机制以及记录创伤机制而没有另一个 COD 的增加趋势。

结论

随着临床经验的增加,DC 错误并没有减少。无论临床经验如何,都需要进行减少 DC 错误的教育和书面 DC 的反馈过程。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4028/10896701/3b9f8c1650c6/jkms-39-e62-g001.jpg

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