Morris C D, Hawes S J
Accident & Emergency Department, South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK.
J Accid Emerg Med. 1996 Mar;13(2):111-3. doi: 10.1136/emj.13.2.111.
To investigate whether accident and emergency (A&E) department based physiotherapy has any advantages over its traditional counterpart in providing treatment for soft tissue injuries.
Two A&E departments were compared: hospital A had a traditional physiotherapy service, while hospital B had A&E based physiotherapy. Groups of adult patients from these two hospitals were compared over a one month period. Data on injuries, number of physiotherapy treatment sessions, and outcome were recorded.
There were 27 referrals for physiotherapy in hospital A during the study period (1.17% of attendances) and 111 referrals in hospital B (4.03%) (P < 0.001). The waiting time for physiotherapy was significantly less at hospital B (3 v 7 d, P < 0.001) despite a far greater number of patients referred. Non-referral at the hospital with the traditional service was due to a perceived long waiting time by the referring doctors. Patients with longer waiting times were found to be less likely to attend their first appointment, and this was therefore more common in the hospital with the traditional service (39.5% v 9.8%).
An A&E based physiotherapy service results in a greater referral rate and a shortened time between referral and first treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate and compare long terms outcomes following treatment by both types of physiotherapy service.
调查在为软组织损伤提供治疗方面，急诊科理疗是否比传统理疗具有任何优势。
比较两个急诊科：医院A提供传统理疗服务，而医院B提供基于急诊科的理疗服务。在一个月的时间内对来自这两家医院的成年患者组进行比较。记录损伤数据、理疗治疗次数和治疗结果。
在研究期间，医院A有27例理疗转诊（占就诊人数的1.17%），医院B有111例转诊（占4.03%）（P<0.001）。尽管转诊患者数量多得多，但医院B的理疗等待时间明显更短（3天对7天，P<0.001）。提供传统服务的医院未转诊是因为转诊医生认为等待时间长。发现等待时间长的患者参加首次预约的可能性较小，因此在提供传统服务的医院这种情况更常见（39.5%对9.8%）。
基于急诊科的理疗服务导致更高的转诊率和转诊与首次治疗之间时间的缩短。需要进一步研究来评估和比较两种理疗服务治疗后的长期结果。
