Suppr超能文献

评估儿科急诊科患者二级分诊优先排序软件的随机对照开放标签试验。

Randomized controlled open-label trial to evaluate prioritization software for the secondary triage of patients in the pediatric emergency department.

作者信息

Lun Thomas, Schiro Jessica, Cailliau Emeline, Tchokokam Julien, Liber Melany, de Jorna Claire, Martinot Alain, Dubos François

机构信息

Pediatric Emergency Unit & Infectious Diseases, Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, Lille, F-59000, France.

INSERM, CIC-IT 1403, Lille, F-59000, France.

出版信息

Int J Emerg Med. 2024 Apr 8;17(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12245-024-00623-3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The continual increase in patient attendance at the emergency department (ED) is a worldwide health issue. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of a secondary prioritization software reduces the patients' median length of stay (LOS) in the pediatric ED.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled, open-label trial was conducted over a 30-day period between March 15th and April 23rd 2021 at Lille University Hospital. Work days were randomized to use the patient prioritization software or the pediatric ED's standard dashboard. All time intervals between admission and discharge were recorded prospectively by a physician not involved in patient care during the study period. The study's primary endpoint was the LOS in the pediatric ED, which was expected to be 15 min shorter in the intervention group than in the control group. The secondary endpoints were specific time intervals during the stay in the pediatric ED and levels of staff satisfaction.

RESULTS

1599 patients were included: 798 in the intervention group and 801 in the control group. The median [interquartile range] LOS was 172 min [113-255] in the intervention group and 167 min [108-254) in the control group (p = 0.46). In the intervention group, the time interval between admission to the first medical evaluation for high-priority patients and the time interval between the senior physician's final evaluation and patient discharge were shorter (p < 0.01). The median satisfaction score was 68 [55-80] (average).

CONCLUSION

The patients' total LOS was not significantly shorter on days of intervention. However, use of the electronic patient prioritization tool was associated with significant decreases in some important time intervals during care in the pediatric ED.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT05994196 Trial registration number: NCT05994196. Date of registration: August 16th, 2023.

摘要

背景

急诊科患者就诊人数持续增加是一个全球性的健康问题。本研究的目的是确定使用二级优先排序软件是否能缩短儿科急诊科患者的中位住院时间(LOS)。

方法

2021年3月15日至4月23日期间,在里尔大学医院进行了一项为期30天的随机对照开放标签试验。工作日被随机分配使用患者优先排序软件或儿科急诊科的标准仪表板。在研究期间,由一名不参与患者护理的医生前瞻性记录入院和出院之间的所有时间间隔。该研究的主要终点是儿科急诊科的住院时间,预计干预组比对照组短15分钟。次要终点是在儿科急诊科住院期间的特定时间间隔和工作人员满意度水平。

结果

纳入1599例患者:干预组798例,对照组801例。干预组的中位[四分位间距]住院时间为172分钟[113 - 255],对照组为167分钟[108 - 254](p = 0.46)。在干预组中,高优先级患者从入院到首次医疗评估的时间间隔以及主任医师最终评估到患者出院的时间间隔较短(p < 0.01)。中位满意度评分为68[55 - 80](平均分)。

结论

在干预日,患者的总住院时间没有显著缩短。然而,使用电子患者优先排序工具与儿科急诊科护理期间一些重要时间间隔的显著缩短有关。

临床试验

gov:NCT05994196 试验注册号:NCT05994196。注册日期:2023年8月16日。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4aee/11000356/33408bd9c3eb/12245_2024_623_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

3
Parameters affecting length of stay in a pediatric emergency department: a retrospective observational study.
Eur J Pediatr. 2017 May;176(5):591-598. doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-2879-y. Epub 2017 Mar 8.
4
Emergency Severity Index version 4: a valid and reliable tool in pediatric emergency department triage.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012 Aug;28(8):753-7. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182621813.
5
A 5-year time study analysis of emergency department patient care efficiency.
Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;34(3):326-35. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70126-5.
7
Evaluation of the effectiveness of peer pressure to change disposition decisions and patient throughput by emergency physician.
Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Mar;31(3):535-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.10.012. Epub 2013 Jan 22.

本文引用的文献

1
Impact of risk mapping as a strategy for monitoring and improving patient safety in paediatric emergency care.
An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2022 Oct;97(4):229-236. doi: 10.1016/j.anpede.2022.08.008. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
2
Outcomes of Crowding in Emergency Departments; a Systematic Review.
Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Aug 28;7(1):e52. eCollection 2019.
3
Emergency department triage prediction of clinical outcomes using machine learning models.
Crit Care. 2019 Feb 22;23(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2351-7.
4
Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions.
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 30;13(8):e0203316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203316. eCollection 2018.
7
Should I stay or should I go? Hospital emergency department waiting times and demand.
Health Econ. 2018 Mar;27(3):e30-e42. doi: 10.1002/hec.3610. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
8
Can Team Triage Improve Patient Flow in the Emergency Department? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2016 Jul-Sep;38(3):233-50. doi: 10.1097/TME.0000000000000113.
9
A Daytime Fast Track Improves Throughput in a Single Physician Coverage Emergency Department.
CJEM. 2015 Nov;17(6):648-55. doi: 10.1017/cem.2015.41. Epub 2015 Jun 11.

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