• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
Interobserver agreement in Reception and Risk Stratification in Obstetrics implementation.产科接收与风险分层中的观察者间一致性实施情况。
Rev Bras Enferm. 2024 Dec 13;77(5):e20230361. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2023-0361. eCollection 2024.
2
A simple clinical assessment is superior to systematic triage in prediction of mortality in the emergency department.简单的临床评估优于系统分诊,可更好地预测急诊科的死亡率。
Emerg Med J. 2019 Feb;36(2):66-71. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2016-206382. Epub 2018 Oct 16.
3
Be careful with triage in emergency departments: interobserver agreement on 1,578 patients in France.在急诊科分诊时要小心:法国 1578 名患者的观察者间一致性。
BMC Emerg Med. 2011 Oct 31;11:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-227X-11-19.
4
Validation of an emergency triage scale for obstetrics and gynaecology: a prospective study.妇产科急诊分诊量表的验证:一项前瞻性研究。
BJOG. 2017 Nov;124(12):1867-1873. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14535. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
5
Interobserver agreement in emergency department triage.急诊科分诊中的观察者间一致性。
Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Feb;41(2):191-5. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.47.
6
Reliability analysis of the Manchester Triage System: inter-observer and intra-observer agreement.曼彻斯特分诊系统的可靠性分析:观察者间和观察者内一致性
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2018 Jul 16;26:e3005. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.2205.3005.
7
Inter-rater reliability and validity of the Ministry of Health of Turkey's mandatory emergency triage instrument.土耳其卫生部强制性急诊分诊工具的评分者间信度和效度。
Emerg Med Australas. 2015 Jun;27(3):210-5. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12385. Epub 2015 Mar 26.
8
[Prognostic value of the reception, attendance and classification of patients in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital].[三级医院急诊科患者接待、就诊及分类的预后价值]
An Sist Sanit Navar. 2005 May-Aug;28(2):177-88. doi: 10.4321/s1137-66272005000300003.
9
Construction and validation of the Emergency Oncology Scale (EMOnco), a risk rating protocol for the triage of cancer patients in acute care settings.构建并验证紧急肿瘤量表(EMOnco),一种用于急性护理环境中癌症患者分诊的风险评级方案。
Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2024 Oct 14;22:eAO0693. doi: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2024AO0693. eCollection 2024.
10
The effectiveness of the South African Triage Toll use in Mahalapye District Hospital - Emergency Department, Botswana.南非分诊量表在博茨瓦纳马哈拉皮耶地区医院急诊科的应用效果。
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2016 Jul 26;8(1):e1-5. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v8i1.1030.

本文引用的文献

1
Implementation matters: assessing the effectiveness and sustainment of an obstetric triage program at a high-volume facility in Ghana.实施很重要:评估加纳一家高流量医疗机构产科分诊项目的有效性和持续性。
Implement Sci Commun. 2023 Nov 15;4(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00527-y.
2
Satisfaction with maternity triage following implementation of the Birmingham Symptom-Specific Obstetric Triage System (BSOTS): Perspectives of women and staff.伯明翰症状特异性产科分诊系统(BSOTS)实施后对产科分诊的满意度:女性和工作人员的观点
J Adv Nurs. 2024 Feb;80(2):673-682. doi: 10.1111/jan.15806. Epub 2023 Jul 27.
3
Quality and timeliness of emergency obstetric care and its association with maternal outcome in Keren Hospital, Eritrea.厄立特里亚克伦医院的紧急产科护理质量和及时性及其与母婴结局的关系。
Sci Rep. 2022 Aug 26;12(1):14614. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18685-9.
4
Obstetric triage improvement process using the Donabedian model of quality care: a quality improvement initiative.利用 Donabedian 质量护理模式改进产科分诊流程:一项质量改进举措。
BMJ Open Qual. 2022 May;11(2). doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001483.
5
The midwives' experiences of the use of obstetric triage and obstetric triage tool during labour in Bojanala district.博贾纳拉区助产士在分娩期间使用产科分诊及产科分诊工具的经验。
Health SA. 2022 Mar 31;27:1758. doi: 10.4102/hsag.v27i0.1758. eCollection 2022.
6
Improving assessment of acute obstetric patients - introducing a Swedish obstetric triage system.改善急性产科患者评估——引入瑞典产科分诊系统。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Nov 6;21(1):1207. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07210-9.
7
Factors influencing the implementation of obstetric triage: a qualitative study.影响产房产前检查实施的因素:一项定性研究。
Midwifery. 2021 Jan;92:102878. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2020.102878. Epub 2020 Oct 29.
8
System for reception and risk classification in obstetrics: a technical quality assessment.产科接收与风险分类系统:一项技术质量评估
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2020;28:e3330. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.3327.3330. Epub 2020 Jul 15.
9
Obstetric and fetal triage.产科和胎儿分诊。
Semin Perinatol. 2020 Jun;44(4):151240. doi: 10.1016/j.semperi.2020.151240. Epub 2020 Mar 13.
10
Obstetric Triage Scales; a Narrative Review.产科分诊量表:一项叙述性综述
Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 13;7(1):e13. eCollection 2019 Winter.

产科接收与风险分层中的观察者间一致性实施情况。

Interobserver agreement in Reception and Risk Stratification in Obstetrics implementation.

作者信息

Velho Manuela Beatriz, Pimentel Luciana Santos, Silva Fernanda Amâncio Soares da, Trapani Junior Alberto, Ventura Thayná, Almeida Adaiana Fátima, Costa Roberta, Knobel Roxana

机构信息

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

出版信息

Rev Bras Enferm. 2024 Dec 13;77(5):e20230361. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2023-0361. eCollection 2024.

DOI:10.1590/0034-7167-2023-0361
PMID:39699415
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11654229/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

to analyze interobserver agreement in the Reception and Risk Stratification in Obstetrics protocol implementation.

METHODS

a cross-sectional study carried out during Reception and Risk Stratification in Obstetrics implementation, conducted in a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil with 891 participants in January 2020. Descriptive and interobserver agreement analysis was carried out using the Kappa coefficient in the risk stratification assigned by the triage nurse and reviewed by the researcher.

RESULTS

around half of the calls (55.6%) were stratified as not very urgent (green), followed by urgent (yellow) (31.8%), very urgent (orange) (9.3%), not urgent (blue) (3.4%) and no emerging stratification (red). Agreement analysis of revised stratification found Kappa values of 0.20 (blue), 0.54 (green), 0.77 (yellow) and 0.80 (orange).

CONCLUSIONS

most appointments were non-urgent. The agreement analysis between the revised and assigned risk stratification revealed greater interobserver agreement as the priority level increased.

摘要

目的

分析产科接诊与风险分层方案实施过程中的观察者间一致性。

方法

于2020年1月在巴西南部一家三级医院开展了一项横断面研究,该研究在产科接诊与风险分层实施期间进行,共有891名参与者。使用Kappa系数对分诊护士进行的风险分层并经研究人员审核后的情况进行描述性和观察者间一致性分析。

结果

约一半的呼叫(55.6%)被分层为不太紧急(绿色),其次是紧急(黄色)(31.8%)、非常紧急(橙色)(9.3%)、不紧急(蓝色)(3.4%)以及无新分层(红色)。修订分层的一致性分析发现,蓝色的Kappa值为0.20,绿色为0.54,黄色为0.77,橙色为0.80。

结论

大多数预约不紧急。修订后的风险分层与分配的风险分层之间的一致性分析表明,随着优先级的提高,观察者间的一致性更强。