Zhao Qiu, Zhao Yue, Ke Tingting, Lin Caili, Xu Yao, Xu Yuanyuan, Liu Shuli, Li Xinqun
Emergency Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325000, China.
Intensive Care Unit, Wenzhou Central Hospital, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325000, China.
BMC Emerg Med. 2025 Mar 24;25(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12873-025-01203-1.
The mortality and disability rates among severely injured trauma patients are very high. This study aimed to investigate whether a new in-hospital trauma care model can improve emergency care efficiency and enhance the prognosis of severely injured trauma patients.
This retrospective observational study included 366 severely injured trauma patients (ISS ≥ 16) who were admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary hospital between 2023 and 2024. Based on the emergency care model used, patients were divided into the traditional model group (n = 213) from January to April 2023 and the new model group (n = 153) from January to April 2024. The general clinical data, prognosis information, as well as seven emergency quality control indicators for both groups were collected and analyzed.
The study included 270 male patients (73.8%) and 96 female patients (26.2%), with a mean age of 56 (44, 69) years. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding gender, age, time since injury, mechanism of injury, and vital signs upon admission (P > 0.05). The new model group had significantly shorter times for establishing effective circulation access (15.66 ± 3.36 vs. 9.44 ± 3.18 min), establishing an artificial airway (36.90 ± 12.23 vs. 23.91 ± 9.07 min), preparing blood transfusion (48.84 ± 5.73 vs. 31.0 ± 64.67 min), completing whole-body CT scans (57.18 ± 8.26 vs. 42.17 ± 7.28 min), and developing a definitive treatment plan (77.45 ± 6.26 vs. 56.50 ± 6.35 min) compared to the traditional model group. Additionally, the new model group had a significantly higher rate of bedside FAST completion (92.8% vs. 53.1%) and a higher success rate of resuscitation within the first hour (70.9% vs. 85.0%) than the traditional model group. Regarding prognosis, the new model group had a lower overall in-hospital mortality rate (12.1% vs. 5.9%) and a lower incidence of complications such as DIC and ARDS (23.9% vs. 9.2%, all P < 0.05).
The new in-hospital trauma care model significantly enhanced the in-hospital emergency care efficiency, reduced in-hospital mortality, and decreased the incidence of complications for severely injured patients, which may serve as a useful reference for developing countries in similar settings.
Not applicable.
重伤创伤患者的死亡率和致残率非常高。本研究旨在调查一种新的院内创伤护理模式是否可以提高急救效率并改善重伤创伤患者的预后。
这项回顾性观察研究纳入了2023年至2024年间在一家三级医院急诊科就诊的366例重伤创伤患者(损伤严重度评分[ISS]≥16)。根据所采用的急救模式,患者被分为2023年1月至4月的传统模式组(n = 213)和2024年1月至4月的新模式组(n = 153)。收集并分析了两组的一般临床资料、预后信息以及七个急诊质量控制指标。
该研究纳入了270例男性患者(73.8%)和96例女性患者(26.2%),平均年龄为56(44,69)岁。两组在性别、年龄、受伤时间、损伤机制和入院时生命体征方面无显著差异(P>0.05)。与传统模式组相比,新模式组在建立有效循环通路(15.66±3.36 vs. 9.44±3.18分钟)、建立人工气道(36.90±12.23 vs. 23.91±9.07分钟)、准备输血(48.84±5.73 vs. 31.0±64.67分钟)、完成全身CT扫描(57.18±8.26 vs. 42.17±7.28分钟)以及制定确定性治疗方案(77.45±6.26 vs. 56.50±6.35分钟)方面的时间明显更短。此外,新模式组的床旁快速超声心动图(FAST)完成率显著更高(92.8% vs. 53.1%),且第一小时内的复苏成功率也高于传统模式组(70.9% vs. 85.0%)。在预后方面,新模式组的院内总体死亡率较低(12.1% vs. 5.9%),弥散性血管内凝血(DIC)和急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)等并发症的发生率也较低(23.9% vs. 9.2%,均P<0.05)。
新的院内创伤护理模式显著提高了院内急救效率,降低了院内死亡率,并减少了重伤患者并发症的发生率,这可能为类似环境下的发展中国家提供有益参考。
不适用。