Lowe R A, Bindman A B, Ulrich S K, Norman G, Scaletta T A, Keane D, Washington D, Grumbach K
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Feb;23(2):286-93. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70042-7.
To determine whether a set of published triage guidelines identifies patients who can safely be refused emergency department care.
Historical cohort study.
A public hospital ED.
All patients triaged during a one-week period who were not in the most acute triage category.
Two ED nurses, blinded to the study hypothesis, reviewed each triage sheet to determine whether the case met the published guidelines for refusing care. In addition, each ED record was reviewed for appropriateness; a visit was considered appropriate only if predetermined, explicit criteria were met and an emergency physician agreed that a 24-hour delay in care might have worsened the patient's outcome.
Of the 106 patients who would have been refused care according to the triage guidelines, 35 (33%) had appropriate visits. Four were hospitalized.
When tested in our patient population, the triage guidelines were not sufficiently sensitive to identify patients who needed ED care. Broad application of these guidelines may jeopardize the health of some patients.
确定一套已发表的分诊指南能否识别出可安全拒绝急诊科治疗的患者。
历史性队列研究。
一家公立医院急诊科。
在一周内接受分诊且不属于最紧急分诊类别的所有患者。
两名对研究假设不知情的急诊科护士查看每份分诊单,以确定该病例是否符合已发表的拒绝治疗指南。此外,对每份急诊科记录进行适宜性审查;仅当满足预先确定的明确标准且急诊医生认为延迟24小时治疗可能会使患者病情恶化时,此次就诊才被视为适宜。
根据分诊指南本应被拒绝治疗的106例患者中,35例(33%)就诊适宜。4例住院治疗。
在我们的患者群体中进行测试时,分诊指南对识别需要急诊科治疗的患者不够敏感。广泛应用这些指南可能会危及一些患者的健康。