Graff L G, Clark S, Radford M J
University of Connecticut Medical School, Farmington, CT.
Arch Emerg Med. 1993 Sep;10(3):145-54. doi: 10.1136/emj.10.3.145.
The object of this study was to compare emergency physician critical care services in an American (A) and an English (E) Emergency Department (ED). A prospective case comparison trial was used. The study was carried out at two university affiliated community hospitals, one in the U.S.A and one in England. Subjects were consecutive patients triaged as requiring critical care services and subsequently admitted to the hospital ward (A, n = 17; E, n = 18) or the intensive/critical care unit ([ICU] A, n = 14; E, n = 24). The study time period was randomly selected 8-h shifts occurring over a 4-week period. All patients were treated by standard guidelines for critical care services at the study hospital emergency department. For all study patients mean length of stay was significantly longer for the American (233 min, 95% CI 201, 264) than the English ED (24 min, 95% CI 23, 25). American emergency physicians spent less total time providing physician services (19.2 min, 95% CI 16.8, 21.6) vs. (23 min, 95% CI 21.6, 24.4) than English emergency physicians. American emergency physicians spent less time with the patient than English emergency physicians: 12.4 min (95% CI 10.3, 14.5) vs. 17 min (95% CI 15.8, 18.2). American emergency physicians spent more time on the telephone 1.8 min (95% CI 1.4, 2.2) vs. 1.2 min (95% CI 1.1, 1.3), and in patient care discussions/order giving 1.8 min (95% CI 1.4, 2.2) vs. 1.1 min (95% CI .8, 1.4), There was no significant difference in time charting (3.2 min, 95% CI 2.8, 3.6 vs. 3.5 min, 95% CI 3.2, 3.8). Results did not vary significantly whether analysed subgroups or the whole study group. American emergency physicians provided 81% of their service during the first hour. There were delays at the American hospital until the physician saw the patient: 4.9 min (95% CI 2.5, 7.3) for patients admitted to the ICU/CVU (Cardiovascular Unit), and 9.2 min (95% CI 4.6, 13.8) for patients admitted to the ward. At the American hospital, ICU/CVU physicians provided additional physician services in the emergency department whether the patient was admitted to the ward (6.7 min, 95% CI 5.5, 7.9) or the ICU/CVU (12.1 min, 95% CI 8.8, 15.9). For patients admitted to the ICU/CVU 47% of the length of stay was spent waiting for a bed to become available after the decision to admit had been made. Emergency physicians at E provided critical care services almost continuously during a short stay in the ED. Emergency physicians at A provided services intermittently with most services during an initial period of stabilization. Further study is necessary to identify what factors contribute to these different approaches to critical care in the ED.
本研究的目的是比较美国(A)和英国(E)急诊科(ED)中急诊医生的重症监护服务。采用前瞻性病例对照试验。该研究在两家大学附属医院进行,一家在美国,一家在英国。研究对象为连续被分诊为需要重症监护服务并随后入住医院病房(A组,n = 17;E组,n = 18)或重症监护病房(ICU,A组,n = 14;E组,n = 24)的患者。研究时间段为在4周内随机选取的8小时轮班。所有患者均按照研究医院急诊科的重症监护服务标准指南进行治疗。对于所有研究患者,美国急诊科患者的平均住院时间(233分钟,95%可信区间201, 264)显著长于英国急诊科患者(24分钟,95%可信区间23, 25)。美国急诊医生提供医生服务的总时间(19.2分钟,95%可信区间16.8, 21.6)少于英国急诊医生(23分钟,95%可信区间21.6, 24.4)。美国急诊医生与患者相处的时间少于英国急诊医生:12.4分钟(95%可信区间10.3, 14.5)对比17分钟(95%可信区间15.8, 18.2)。美国急诊医生打电话的时间更多,为1.8分钟(95%可信区间1.4, 2.2),而英国为1.2分钟(95%可信区间1.1, 1.3);在患者护理讨论/下达医嘱方面,美国为1.8分钟(95%可信区间1.4, 2.2),英国为1.1分钟(95%可信区间0.8, 1.4)。在记录时间方面没有显著差异(3.2分钟,95%可信区间2.8, 3.6对比3.5分钟,95%可信区间3.2, 3.8)。无论是分析亚组还是整个研究组,结果均无显著差异。美国急诊医生在第一个小时内提供了81%的服务。在美国医院,直到医生见到患者存在延迟:入住ICU/CVU(心血管科)的患者延迟4.9分钟(95%可信区间2.5, 7.3),入住病房的患者延迟9.2分钟(95%可信区间4.6, 13.8)。在美国医院,无论患者入住病房(6.7分钟,95%可信区间5.5, 7.9)还是ICU/CVU(12.1分钟,95%可信区间8.8, 15.9),ICU/CVU医生都会在急诊科提供额外的医生服务。对于入住ICU/CVU的患者,在做出入院决定后,47%的住院时间用于等待有空床。英国急诊科的急诊医生在患者短暂停留期间几乎持续提供重症监护服务。美国急诊科的急诊医生在初始稳定期内间歇性地提供服务,大部分服务集中在该阶段。有必要进一步研究以确定哪些因素导致了急诊科重症监护的这些不同方式。