Suppr超能文献

创伤激活中的交通模式与紧急医疗服务预通知转运估计

Traffic Patterns and Emergency Medical Services Prenotification Transport Estimates in Trauma Activations.

作者信息

Gorgens Sophia, Rastegar Ella R, Beltran Del Rio Manuel, Meyer Cristy, Rolston Daniel M, Sfakianos Maria, Klein Eric N, Li Timmy, Gujral Rashmeet, Bank Matthew A, Jafari Daniel

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Northwell Health, Long Island, NY, USA.

Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.

出版信息

Open Access Emerg Med. 2024 Nov 29;16:297-303. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S480081. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether traffic patterns affect the accuracy of emergency medical services (EMS) prediction of transport interval to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Using a retrospective study, we examined all trauma activations at a level one, urban trauma center in Manhasset, New York, between 5/22/2021 and 3/30/2022. Inclusion criteria included patients ≥18 years and arrival by EMS. Field trauma activations involve prenotification communication through a government intermediary. Transport during "peak hours" was defined as hospital arrival of EMS between 06:00-10:00 and 16:00-20:00, Monday through Friday. ETI and actual transit interval (ATI) were extracted from the recorded prenotification calls and hospital records respectively. In instances with a time range, the arithmetic mean was used. ATI was defined as the time from prenotification call to arrival at the hospital. A 25% difference between EMS ETI and ATI was chosen to categorize each arrival as overestimated (ATI/ETI < 0.75), accurate (ATI/ETI within 0.75-1.25), and underestimated (ATI/ETI > 1.25). Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used for comparative analysis as appropriate.

RESULTS

Of the 369 trauma transports, 117 had prenotification reports with an ETI and were included in our analysis. Of those, 29 (25%) occurred during peak hours. Overall, EMS more often underestimated ETI (55%) than exactly (32%), or overestimated ETI (12%) (p<0.0001). This was true during peak and off-peak hours with underestimated, accurate, and overestimated arrivals being 59%, 31%, 10% (p<0.01); and 54%, 33%, 12% (p<0.001), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between peak vs off-peak hours when comparing the proportion of under vs over-estimated times of arrival (p=0.263).

CONCLUSION

While our hypothesis was not borne out, further research on the antecedents of underestimated transport intervals in traumas is warranted. This will allow for targeted solutions to best support EMS clinicians in communicating transport times back to the ED.

摘要

目的

确定交通模式是否会影响紧急医疗服务(EMS)对送往急诊科(ED)转运时间预测的准确性。

方法

采用回顾性研究,我们调查了2021年5月22日至2022年3月30日期间纽约曼哈塞特一家一级城市创伤中心的所有创伤激活事件。纳入标准包括年龄≥18岁且由EMS送达的患者。现场创伤激活事件涉及通过政府中介进行的预通知通信。“高峰时段”的转运定义为周一至周五EMS在06:00 - 10:00和16:00 - 20:00之间到达医院。预计转运时间(ETI)和实际转运间隔时间(ATI)分别从记录的预通知电话和医院记录中提取。对于有时间范围的情况,使用算术平均值。ATI定义为从预通知电话到医院到达的时间。选择EMS的ETI与ATI之间25%的差异来将每次到达分类为高估(ATI/ETI < 0.75)、准确(ATI/ETI在0.75 - 1.25之间)和低估(ATI/ETI > 1.25)。根据情况使用Fisher精确检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验进行比较分析。

结果

在369次创伤转运中,117次有带有ETI的预通知报告并被纳入我们的分析。其中,29次(25%)发生在高峰时段。总体而言,EMS更常低估ETI(55%),而不是准确预测(32%)或高估ETI(12%)(p<0.0001)。在高峰时段和非高峰时段都是如此,低估、准确和高估到达的比例分别为59%、31%、10%(p<0.01);以及54%、33%、12%(p<0.001)。在比较低估与高估到达时间的比例时,高峰时段与非高峰时段之间没有统计学上的显著差异(p = 0.263)。

结论

虽然我们的假设未得到证实,但有必要对创伤中转运间隔时间被低估的原因进行进一步研究。这将有助于找到有针对性的解决方案,以最好地支持EMS临床医生向ED反馈转运时间。

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