Suppr超能文献

受伤患者重新分诊至伊利诺伊州高级创伤中心的失效模式影响分析。

Failure Mode Effects Analysis of Re-triage of Injured Patients to Receiving High-Level Illinois Trauma Centers.

作者信息

Slocum John D, Holl Jane L, Brigode William M, Voights Mary Beth, Anstadt Michael J, Henry Marion C, Mis Justin, Fantus Richard J, Plackett Timothy P, Markul Eddie J, Chang Grace H, Shapiro Michael B, Siparsky Nicole, Stey Anne M

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.

Department of Neurology, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

出版信息

Ann Surg. 2024 Oct 11. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006561.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study identified failures in emergency inter-hospital transfer, or re-triage, at high-level trauma centers receiving severely injured patients.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The re-triage process averages four hours despite the fact timely re-triage within two hours mitigates injury-associated mortality. Non-trauma and low-level trauma centers reported most critical failures were in finding an accepting high-level trauma center. Critical failures at high-level trauma centers have not been assessed.

METHODS

This was an observational cross-sectional study at nine high-level adult trauma centers and three high-level pediatric trauma centers. Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) of the re-triage process was conducted in four phases. Phase 1 purposively sampled trauma coordinators followed by snowball sampling of clinicians, operations, and leadership to ensure representative participation. Phase 2 mapped each re-triage step. Phase 3 identified failures at each step. Phase 4 scored each failure on impact, frequency, and safeguards for detection. Standardized rubrics were used in Phase 4 to rate each failure's impact (I), frequency (F), and safeguard for detection (S) to calculate their Risk Priority Number (RPN) (I x F x S). Failures were rank ordered for criticality.

RESULTS

A total of 64 trauma coordinators, surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, nurses, operations and quality managers across twelve high-level trauma centers participated. There were 178failures identified at adult and pediatric high-level trauma centers. The most critical failures were: Insufficient trained transport staff (RPN=648); Issues transmitting imaging from sending to receiving centers (RPN=400); Incomplete exchange of clinical information(RPN=384).

CONCLUSIONS

The most critical failures were limited transportation and incomplete exchange of clinical, radiological and arrival timing information. Further investigation of these failures that includes several regions is needed to determine the reproducibility of these findings.

摘要

目的

本研究确定了接收重伤患者的高级创伤中心在紧急院际转运或重新分诊过程中存在的失误。

总结背景数据

尽管两小时内及时重新分诊可降低与损伤相关的死亡率,但重新分诊过程平均需要四个小时。非创伤和低级创伤中心报告称,最关键的失误在于找到接收的高级创伤中心。高级创伤中心的关键失误尚未得到评估。

方法

这是一项针对九个成人高级创伤中心和三个儿童高级创伤中心的观察性横断面研究。重新分诊过程的失效模式与效应分析(FMEA)分四个阶段进行。第1阶段有目的地对创伤协调员进行抽样,随后通过对临床医生、运营人员和领导层进行滚雪球抽样,以确保代表性参与。第2阶段绘制每个重新分诊步骤。第3阶段确定每个步骤的失误。第4阶段根据影响、频率和检测保障对每个失误进行评分。第4阶段使用标准化量表对每个失误的影响(I)、频率(F)和检测保障(S)进行评分,以计算其风险优先数(RPN)(I×F×S)。根据关键性对失误进行排序。

结果

十二个高级创伤中心共有64名创伤协调员、外科医生、急诊医学医生、护士、运营和质量管理人员参与。在成人和儿童高级创伤中心共识别出178个失误。最关键的失误是:运输人员培训不足(RPN = 648);影像从发送中心传输到接收中心存在问题(RPN = 400);临床信息交换不完整(RPN = 384)。

结论

最关键的失误是运输受限以及临床、放射学和到达时间信息的交换不完整。需要对包括多个地区在内的这些失误进行进一步调查,以确定这些发现的可重复性。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

8
Transfer Time After Acceptance to a Level I Trauma Center.被接收至一级创伤中心后的转运时间。
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018 Feb 2;2(2):e081. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00081. eCollection 2018 Feb.
9
Risk assessment of the hospital discharge process of high-risk patients with diabetes.糖尿病高危患者出院流程的风险评估
BMJ Open Qual. 2018 May 16;7(2):e000224. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000224. eCollection 2018.

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