Suppr超能文献

根据机制进行车辆创伤分诊:避免无效评估。

Vehicular trauma triage by mechanism: avoidance of the unproductive evaluation.

作者信息

Simon B J, Legere P, Emhoff T, Fiallo V M, Garb J

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts 01199.

出版信息

J Trauma. 1994 Oct;37(4):645-9.

PMID:7932897
Abstract

An instrument was developed using routinely available field data to identify the sizable subgroup of stable vehicular trauma victims initially triaged to the trauma center by mechanism indicators alone who are in reality at minimal risk for serious injury. The six most common vehicular mechanism indicators seen at a level I trauma center were evaluated: rollover, head-on greater than 30 mph, intrusion, prolonged extrication, other death in same vehicle, and ejection. Review of 1235 consecutive trauma team activations yielded 349 victims with a qualifying vehicular mechanism. Outcome indicators were used to classify patients into two groups: Minor Injury (MI) and Severe Injury (SI). Nineteen common field data elements routinely reported on arrival by the regional Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel were then reviewed. Data patterns associated only with the MI group were sought. A checklist was developed for Mechanism vehicular trauma utilizing physiologic, anatomic, and neurologic elements. A single positive element would define trauma team activations. Retrospectively, use of this instrument would have excluded 56% of the MI group from unproductive trauma team referral, but nearly none of the SI group. We conclude that an identifiable subset of trauma patients referred by vehicular mechanism criteria alone could be safely evaluated on arrival in the emergency department as a form of secondary triage rather than by referral to the trauma team. The use of an appropriate exclusionary instrument can still preserve the sensitivity of trauma team activation for severely injured victims.

摘要

开发了一种工具,利用常规可得的现场数据来识别稳定的车辆创伤受害者中的一个相当大的亚组,这些受害者最初仅通过机制指标被分诊到创伤中心,而实际上他们受重伤的风险极小。对一级创伤中心所见的六种最常见的车辆机制指标进行了评估:翻车、时速超过30英里的正面碰撞、车辆侵入、长时间解救、同一车辆内有其他死亡人员以及被抛出车外。对连续1235次创伤团队启动事件进行回顾,发现有349名受害者符合车辆机制标准。使用结果指标将患者分为两组:轻伤(MI)和重伤(SI)。然后回顾了区域紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员在到达时常规报告的19个常见现场数据元素。寻找仅与MI组相关的数据模式。利用生理、解剖和神经学元素制定了一份车辆创伤机制检查表。一个阳性元素即可确定创伤团队启动事件。回顾性分析表明,使用该工具可将56%的MI组患者排除在无意义的创伤团队转诊之外,但几乎不会排除SI组患者。我们得出结论,仅根据车辆机制标准转诊的创伤患者中,有一个可识别的亚组在到达急诊科时可作为二级分诊形式进行安全评估,而不是转诊至创伤团队。使用适当的排除工具仍可保持创伤团队启动对重伤受害者的敏感性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验