• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

改变儿科急诊科使用模式的教育干预措施。

Educational interventions to alter pediatric emergency department utilization patterns.

作者信息

Chande V T, Wyss N, Exum V

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.

出版信息

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996 May;150(5):525-8. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170300079015.

DOI:10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170300079015
PMID:8620236
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that educating parents about use of their primary care provider and providing information about common pediatric illnesses will reduce visits to the pediatric emergency department (PED).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial conducted from September 1, 1993, to October 31, 1994.

SETTING

Pediatric emergency department of an urban university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Parents of 130 patients seen in the PED for minor illness.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were randomized to intervention or control groups. Parents in both groups were interviewed about their child's health and use of health care services. The intervention group received education on pediatric health care issues; the control group received usual PED discharge instructions. Use of the PED by all subjects was tracked for 6 months by telephone follow-up and medical record review.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Differences between the two groups in total number of return visits to the PED and return visits to the PED for minor illness.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven (97%) of the 69 patients in the intervention group and 56 (92%) of the 61 patients in the control group identified a primary care provider. At 6-month follow-up, 21 patients (30%) from the intervention group and 16 (26%) from the control group had returned to the PED (P = .68, chi 2). Seventeen (81%) of intervention group returnees to the PED had minor illness, as did 11 (69%) of control group returnees.

CONCLUSIONS

A one-time educational intervention in the PED does not alter long-term emergency department utilization habits. More extensive education and greater availability of primary care providers may be needed to decrease use of the PED for minor illness.

摘要

目的

检验以下假设,即对家长进行关于其初级保健提供者使用方法的教育并提供常见儿科疾病的信息,将减少儿科急诊科(PED)就诊次数。

设计

1993年9月1日至1994年10月31日进行的前瞻性、随机、对照试验。

地点

一所城市大学医院的儿科急诊科。

参与者

在PED因小病就诊的130名患者的家长。

干预措施

将受试者随机分为干预组和对照组。两组家长均接受关于其孩子健康状况及医疗服务使用情况的访谈。干预组接受儿科医疗保健问题教育;对照组接受常规的PED出院指导。通过电话随访和病历审查对所有受试者的PED使用情况进行6个月的跟踪。

主要观察指标

两组在PED复诊总次数及因小病到PED复诊次数上的差异。

结果

干预组69名患者中的67名(97%)和对照组61名患者中的56名(92%)确定了一名初级保健提供者。在6个月随访时,干预组有21名患者(30%)回到PED,对照组有16名(26%)(P = 0.68,卡方检验)。干预组回到PED的患者中有17名(81%)患有小病,对照组回到PED的患者中有11名(69%)患有小病。

结论

在PED进行的一次性教育干预不会改变长期的急诊科使用习惯。可能需要更广泛的教育以及更多可及的初级保健提供者,以减少因小病使用PED的情况。

相似文献

1
Educational interventions to alter pediatric emergency department utilization patterns.改变儿科急诊科使用模式的教育干预措施。
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996 May;150(5):525-8. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170300079015.
2
A health promotion intervention for families in a Medicaid managed care plan.一项针对医疗补助管理式医疗计划参保家庭的健康促进干预措施。
Acad Emerg Med. 1999 Aug;6(8):823-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb01215.x.
3
Pediatric emergency department utilization habits: a consumer survey.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 1996 Feb;12(1):27-30. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199602000-00008.
4
Effect of telephone calls from primary care practices on follow-up visits after pediatric emergency department visits: evidence from the Pediatric Emergency Department Links to Primary Care (PEDLPC) randomized controlled trial.基层医疗诊所电话随访对儿科急诊科就诊后复诊的影响:来自儿科急诊科与基层医疗联系(PEDLPC)随机对照试验的证据。
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009 Jun;163(6):505-11. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.45.
5
Reconnecting patients with their primary care provider: an intervention for reducing nonurgent pediatric emergency department visits.让患者重新与他们的初级保健提供者建立联系:一项减少非紧急儿科急诊科就诊的干预措施。
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014 Sep;53(10):988-94. doi: 10.1177/0009922814540987. Epub 2014 Jul 8.
6
Impact of Video Discharge Instructions for Pediatric Fever and Closed Head Injury from the Emergency Department.急诊科小儿发热及闭合性颅脑损伤视频出院指导的影响
J Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;50(3):e177-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.10.006. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
7
Nonurgent pediatric emergency department visits: Care-seeking behavior and parental knowledge of insurance.非紧急儿科急诊科就诊:就医行为及家长的保险知识
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003 Feb;19(1):10-4. doi: 10.1097/00006565-200302000-00003.
8
Advice seeking and appropriate use of a pediatric emergency department.寻求建议与儿科急诊科的合理使用。
Am J Dis Child. 1993 Aug;147(8):863-7. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1993.02160320065021.
9
Diverting managed care Medicaid patients from pediatric emergency department use.引导管理式医疗的医疗补助计划患者减少儿科急诊科的使用。
Pediatrics. 1995 Feb;95(2):170-8.
10
Analysis of factors conditioning inappropriate visits in a paediatric emergency department.分析儿科急诊中不适当就诊的影响因素。
Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Dec;182(12):5427-5437. doi: 10.1007/s00431-023-05223-6. Epub 2023 Sep 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Community healthcare appointments as an alternative to emergency department assessment: an exploration of family acceptability and preferences.社区医疗预约作为急诊科评估的替代方案:对家庭可接受性和偏好的探索。
CJEM. 2023 Dec;25(12):984-991. doi: 10.1007/s43678-023-00605-z. Epub 2023 Oct 18.
2
Web-Based Knowledge Translation Tool About Pediatric Acute Gastroenteritis for Parents: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.面向家长的基于网络的小儿急性胃肠炎知识翻译工具:试点随机对照试验
JMIR Form Res. 2023 May 25;7:e45276. doi: 10.2196/45276.
3
Discharge communication practices in pediatric emergency care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
儿科急诊中出院沟通实践:系统评价和叙述性综合。
Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 3;8(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-0995-7.
4
Barriers and enablers to a physician-delivered educational initiative to reduce low-acuity visits to the pediatric emergency department.医生主导的教育活动以减少儿科急诊低危就诊的障碍和促进因素。
PLoS One. 2018 May 29;13(5):e0198181. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198181. eCollection 2018.
5
Characteristics of patients and families who make early return visits to the pediatric emergency department.早期返回儿科急诊科的患者及其家庭的特征。
Open Access Emerg Med. 2013 Jun 20;5:9-15. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S43621. eCollection 2013.
6
Information resources to aid parental decision-making on when to seek medical care for their acutely sick child: a narrative systematic review.帮助父母决定何时为急症患儿寻求医疗护理的信息资源:一项叙述性系统评价
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 16;5(12):e008280. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008280.
7
Why Do Parents Bring Their Children to the Emergency Department? A Systematic Inventory of Motives.家长为何带孩子去急诊科?动机的系统梳理
Int J Family Med. 2015;2015:978412. doi: 10.1155/2015/978412. Epub 2015 Nov 4.
8
Childhood asthma in the emergency department: trends, challenges, and opportunities.急诊科中的儿童哮喘:趋势、挑战与机遇
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2006 Nov;6(6):462-7. doi: 10.1007/s11882-006-0022-7.
9
[Awareness of the Info-Sante CLSC telephone service by users of urgent care services].[紧急护理服务使用者对Info-Sante社区卫生服务中心电话服务的知晓情况]
Can J Public Health. 2002 Jan-Feb;93(1):67-71. doi: 10.1007/BF03404422.
10
Frequent users of the emergency department: a program to improve care and reduce visits.急诊科的频繁使用者:一项改善护理并减少就诊次数的计划。
CMAJ. 2000 Apr 4;162(7):1017-20.