Dale J, Green J, Reid F, Glucksman E
Department of General Practice and Primary Care, King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry, London.
BMJ. 1995 Aug 12;311(7002):423-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7002.423.
To compare patient characteristics and consultation activities for attenders at accident and emergency departments assessed by nurse triage as presenting with "primary care" or "accident and emergency" type problems.
One year prospective study.
A busy, inner city accident and emergency department in south London.
Of the 5658 patients treated for new problems during a stratified random sample of 204 three hour sessions between 10 am and 9 pm during June 1989 to May 1990, all "primary care" (2065 patients) and a 10% random sample of "accident and emergency" (291 patients) were included in the analysis.
Patient's age, sex, duration of presenting problem, diagnosis, laboratory and radiographic investigations, treatments, and referrals.
40.9% of attenders with new problems were classified by triage as presenting with "primary care" problems (95% confidence interval 39.6% to 42.2%). Primary care attenders were more likely than accident and emergency patients to be young adults, to have symptoms with a duration of longer than 24 hours, and to present problems not related to injury (all P < 0.001). Accident and emergency patients were considerably more likely to be referred to on call teams and to be admitted. Even so, 9.7% of primary care patients were referred to on call teams and a further 8.9% were referred to the fracture clinic or advised to return to the accident and emergency department for follow up.
Accident and emergency triage can be developed to identify patients with problems that are more likely to be of a primary care type, and these patients are less likely to receive an investigation, minor surgical procedure, or referral. Many patients in this category, however, receive interventions likely to support their decision to attend accident and emergency rather than general practice. This may reflect limitations in the sensitivity of triage practice or a clinical approach of junior medical staff that includes a propensity to intervene.
比较经护士分诊评估为出现“初级保健”或“急诊”类型问题的急诊科就诊者的患者特征和会诊活动。
为期一年的前瞻性研究。
伦敦南部一个繁忙的市中心急诊科。
在1989年6月至1990年5月期间,从上午10点至晚上9点的204个三小时时段中进行分层随机抽样,共治疗了5658例有新问题的患者,分析纳入了所有“初级保健”患者(2065例)和10%的随机抽样“急诊”患者(291例)。
患者的年龄、性别、就诊问题持续时间、诊断、实验室及影像学检查、治疗及转诊情况。
40.9%有新问题的就诊者经分诊被归类为出现“初级保健”问题(95%置信区间为39.6%至42.2%)。初级保健就诊者比急诊患者更可能是年轻人,症状持续时间超过24小时,且所出现的问题与损伤无关(所有P<0.001)。急诊患者被转介到随叫随到团队及住院的可能性要大得多。即便如此,9.7%的初级保健患者被转介到随叫随到团队,另有8.9%被转介到骨折诊所或被建议返回急诊科进行随访。
急诊分诊可进一步发展以识别更可能属于初级保健类型问题的患者,这些患者接受检查、小型外科手术或转诊的可能性较小。然而,这类患者中有许多接受了可能支持他们前往急诊科而非全科医疗就诊决定的干预措施。这可能反映了分诊实践敏感性的局限性或初级医务人员的临床方法,其中包括干预倾向。