Sahni R, Menegazzi J J, Mosesso V N
University of Pittsburgh, Department of Emergency Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 1997 Jan-Mar;1(1):16-8. doi: 10.1080/10903129708958778.
Standard prehospital practice includes frequent immobilization of blunt trauma patients, oftentimes based solely on mechanism. Unnecessary cervical spine (c-spine) immobilization does have disadvantages, including morbidity such as low back pain and splinting, increased scene time and costs, and patient-paramedic conflict. Some emergency physicians (EPs) use clinical criteria to clear trauma patients of c-spine injury. If paramedics were able to apply clinical criteria in the out-of-hospital setting, then unnecessary c-spine immobilization could be safely avoided. The authors designed a prospective, randomized, simulated trial to determine the level of agreement between paramedic and EP assessments of clinical indicators of c-spine injury, hypothesizing that there would be substantial agreement between them.
A convenience sample of ten paramedics and ten attending EPs participated. Ten standardized patients, with various combinations of positive and negative findings, were examined simultaneously by EP-paramedic pairs. Each pair evaluated five randomly assigned patients for six clinical criteria: 1) alteration in consciousness, 2) evidence of intoxication, 3) complaint of neck pain, 4) cervical tenderness, 5) neurologic deficit or complaint, and 6) distracting injury. If any criterion was positive, clinical clearance was considered to have failed, and the simulated patient would have been immobilized. Fifty pairs of examinations were performed. The kappa statistic was utilized to determine level of agreement between the two groups for each criterion and for the immobilization decision. A kappa of 0.40 to 0.75 denotes good agreement and > 0.75 denotes excellent agreement.
The kappas for the six criteria were: 1) 0.77; 2) 0.68; 3) 0.62; 4) 0.73; 5) 0.68; and 6) 0.62. The kappa statistic for the immobilization decision was 0.90. In only one case did the immobilization decisions differ; the paramedic indicated immobilization, whereas the physician did not.
In this model, there was excellent agreement between paramedics and physicians when evaluating simulated patients for possible c-spine injury. No patient requiring immobilization would have been clinically cleared by paramedics. These data support the progression to a prospective field trial evaluating the use of these criteria by paramedics.
标准的院前急救操作包括频繁地对钝性创伤患者进行固定,很多时候仅仅基于受伤机制。不必要的颈椎(C 脊柱)固定确实存在缺点,包括诸如腰痛和夹板固定等并发症、现场时间和成本增加以及患者与护理人员之间的冲突。一些急诊医生(EPs)使用临床标准来排除创伤患者的 C 脊柱损伤。如果护理人员能够在院外环境中应用临床标准,那么就可以安全地避免不必要的 C 脊柱固定。作者设计了一项前瞻性、随机、模拟试验,以确定护理人员和急诊医生对 C 脊柱损伤临床指标评估之间的一致程度,假设他们之间会有实质性的一致性。
选取了十名护理人员和十名主治急诊医生作为便利样本参与。十名标准化患者,具有各种阳性和阴性结果的组合,由急诊医生 - 护理人员对同时进行检查。每对评估五名随机分配的患者的六个临床标准:1)意识改变;2)中毒证据;3)颈部疼痛主诉;4)颈椎压痛;5)神经功能缺损或主诉;6)分散性损伤。如果任何一项标准为阳性,则认为临床排除失败,模拟患者将被固定。共进行了五十对检查。使用卡方统计量来确定两组在每个标准以及固定决策方面的一致程度。卡方值为 0.40 至 0.75 表示良好一致性,> 0.75 表示优秀一致性。
六个标准的卡方值分别为:1)0.77;2)0.68;3)0.62;4)0.73;5)0.68;6)0.62。固定决策的卡方统计量为 0.90。只有一例固定决策不同;护理人员表示需要固定,而医生则认为不需要。
在这个模型中,当评估模拟患者是否可能存在 C 脊柱损伤时,护理人员和医生之间具有优秀的一致性。没有任何需要固定的患者会被护理人员临床排除。这些数据支持开展一项前瞻性现场试验,以评估护理人员对这些标准的使用情况。