Gibson G
J Trauma. 1978 Feb;18(2):94-102. doi: 10.1097/00005373-197802000-00003.
Despite the emphasis on appropriateness of emergency department utilization, there is currently no methodology for assessing appropriateness nor measures for a community to evaluate and improve effectiveness of its E.M.S. system in treating emergencies at the appropriate emergency room and nonemergencies at appropriate alternative settings. The writer feels that the one current strategy which is widely accepted, the A.M.A.'s concept of categorization, has substantial methodologic limitations. The present paper suggests a methodology and a set of measures to assess appropriateness of utilization and illustrates them with data from Buffalo, New York, on a chart review of 24,594 emergency department patient medical records and interviews with 888 patients and their attending physicians. The measures include: 1) distribution of ambulance and critically ill patients by A.M.A. category of hospital, 2) utilization, characterized as system under- or over-response or as appropriate utilization, and 3) physician judgments as to indicated alternative treatment sites, which are suggested as evaluative tools to hospital and communities for E.M.S. assessment, and to federal and state agencies as performance standards, for project selection for funding and monitoring for outcome evaluation.
尽管强调了急诊科利用的适当性,但目前尚无评估适当性的方法,社区也没有用于评估和提高其急救医疗服务(EMS)系统在适当的急诊室治疗紧急情况以及在适当的替代场所治疗非紧急情况有效性的措施。作者认为,目前被广泛接受的一种策略,即美国医学协会(AMA)的分类概念,存在重大的方法学局限性。本文提出了一种评估利用适当性的方法和一套措施,并用来自纽约州布法罗的数据进行了说明,这些数据来自对24594份急诊科患者病历的图表审查以及对888名患者及其主治医生的访谈。这些措施包括:1)按AMA医院类别划分的救护车和重症患者分布情况;2)利用情况,分为系统反应不足或过度反应或适当利用;3)医生对建议的替代治疗地点的判断,这些被建议作为医院和社区进行EMS评估的评估工具,以及作为联邦和州机构的绩效标准,用于资金项目选择和结果评估监测。