Kliem Paulina S C, Tisljar Kai, Grzonka Pascale, Berger Sebastian, Amacher Simon A, De Marchis Gian Marco, Dittrich Tolga D, Hunziker Sabina, Rüegg Stephan, Bassetti Stefano, Bingisser Roland, Marsch Stephan, Sutter Raoul
Clinic for Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
J Neurol. 2024 Dec 12;272(1):57. doi: 10.1007/s00415-024-12825-z.
Examining the impact of scoring aids on the accuracy of assessing the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in a standardized trauma scenario (primary outcome). Evaluating physicians' understanding of the GCS assessment and clinical application (secondary outcome).
This randomized trial was performed at the simulator center of a Swiss tertiary academic medical hospital. Participants included intensivists, emergency physicians, internists, and neurologists. The setting involved a trauma patient portraying a GCS of 8 (eyes 1, verbal 2, motor 5). Participants were randomized to receiving or not receiving a scoring aid. Video/audio recordings of the assessments and questionnaires were analyzed by two investigators.
Among 109 participants, 55 received a scoring aid. Overall, 52% scored correctly (score interquartile range 7-8); 43% scored too low and 90% scored within a range of ± 1. A scoring aid increased accuracy (62% vs. 43%, p = 0.045) and participants' confidence, whilst decreasing assessment duration. Clinical experience further improved reliability. 89% found assessing a GCS of 8 most challenging, particularly with motor response evaluation (64%). 26% indicated tracheal intubation to be mandatory with a score of GCS ≤ 8.
GCS assessment is improved by professional experience and a scoring aid, the use of which needs to be promoted in daily clinical practice. Frequent inaccuracy and misunderstanding regarding clinical applications may alter patient management and misguide treatment and prognosis.
ISRCTN registry (IDISRCTN12257237) https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12257237 Retrospectively registered (last amendment 08/22/2023).
在标准化创伤场景中,研究评分辅助工具对格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)评估准确性的影响(主要结果)。评估医生对GCS评估及临床应用的理解(次要结果)。
本随机试验在瑞士一家三级学术医学中心的模拟中心进行。参与者包括重症监护医生、急诊科医生、内科医生和神经科医生。场景为一名创伤患者,其GCS评分为8分(睁眼1分,语言2分,运动5分)。参与者被随机分为接受或不接受评分辅助工具组。评估的视频/音频记录及问卷由两名研究人员进行分析。
109名参与者中,55人接受了评分辅助工具。总体而言,52%评分正确(评分四分位间距为7 - 8);43%评分过低,90%的评分在±1范围内。评分辅助工具提高了准确性(62%对43%,p = 0.045)和参与者的信心,同时缩短了评估时间。临床经验进一步提高了可靠性。89%的人认为评估GCS为8分最具挑战性,尤其是在运动反应评估方面(64%)。26%的人表示GCS≤8分时气管插管是必要的。
专业经验和评分辅助工具可改善GCS评估,在日常临床实践中需要推广使用。临床应用中频繁出现的不准确和误解可能会改变患者管理并误导治疗及预后。
ISRCTN注册库(ID:ISRCTN12257237)https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12257237 回顾性注册(最后修订日期:2023年8月22日)