Qazi K, Kempf J A, Christopher N C, Gerson L W
Division of Emergency and Trauma Services, Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron, OH 44308-1062, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 1998 Oct;5(10):1002-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02780.x.
To determine the value of paramedic judgment in determining the need for trauma team activation (TA) for pediatric blunt trauma patients.
A prospective, observational study was conducted at the ED of Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron between July 12, 1996, and February 28, 1997, in cooperation with Akron Fire Department emergency medical technician-paramedics (EMT-Ps). The ED provides on-line and off-line medical control for pediatric transports. Patients with minor or no identifiable injuries are released at the scene with the instructions to see a physician. The remainder are transported to the ED. The decision for TTA is based on ED trauma protocols as well as emergency physician judgment of injury severity in combination with the judgment of the treating paramedic. During the study, EMT-Ps were asked (before physician input) whether, based solely on their judgment, a patient needed TTA. Patients 0-14 years old who were involved in motor vehicle crashes, bike crashes, or falls from a height of >10 feet were included in the study. TTA was defined as necessary if the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or operating room (OR) for nonorthopedic surgical procedures. Out-of-hospital, ED, and hospital records were reviewed. Coroners' records as well as medical records of all trauma admissions during the study period were reviewed to ensure that the patients released at the scene were not mistriaged.
One hundred ninety-two patients met study criteria. Eighty-five patients (44%) were transported to the ED, of whom 12 had TTA. EMT-Ps requested TTA for 10 of these patients, and 2 patients had TTA per ED trauma protocol. Two of the patients who were judged by EMT-Ps to need TTA were admitted to the ICU/OR, and neither of the patients identified by ED trauma protocol to require TTA were admitted to the ICU/OR. Two initially stable patients who did not have TTA deteriorated after arrival to the ED. Both were admitted to the ICU. The sensitivity and specificity of paramedic judgment of the need for TTA for pediatric blunt trauma patients were 50% (95% CI 9.2-90.8) and 87.7% (95% CI 78.0-93.6), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 16.7% (95% CI 2.9-49.1) and 97.3% (95% CI 89.6-99.5). None of the patients released at the scene was mistriaged based on the review of the coroners' and trauma admission records.
Results of this investigation indicate that a small percentage of pediatric blunt trauma patients require TTA. EMT-P judgment alone of the need for TTA for pediatric blunt trauma patients is not sufficiently sensitive to be of clinical use. The low sensitivity is explained by the deterioration in the clinical condition of 2 initially stable patients. The paramedic disposition decisions from the scene were always accurate. Nontransport by emergency medical services (EMS) may be acceptable in some uninjured pediatric trauma patients. Injured pediatric trauma patients who appear to be stable may deteriorate shortly after injury. However, if a pediatric patient appears injured, transport from the scene and examination by a trauma specialist are needed. Finally, the role of paramedic judgment must be further defined by larger studies with urban, rural, and suburban EMS systems before it can be used as a sole predictor of TTA.
确定护理人员的判断对于判定小儿钝性创伤患者是否需要启动创伤团队(TA)的价值。
1996年7月12日至1997年2月28日,在阿克伦儿童医院医疗中心急诊科与阿克伦消防部门的急救医疗技术员-护理人员(EMT-P)合作开展了一项前瞻性观察研究。该急诊科为儿科转运提供在线和离线医疗控制。伤势较轻或无明显损伤的患者在现场接受指示后被放行去看医生。其余患者被转运至急诊科。启动TA的决定基于急诊科创伤诊疗方案以及急诊医生对损伤严重程度的判断,并结合主治护理人员的判断。在研究期间,EMT-P被要求(在医生给出意见之前)仅基于他们的判断,确定患者是否需要启动TA。纳入研究的患者为0至14岁,涉及机动车碰撞、自行车碰撞或从高于10英尺的高度坠落。如果患者因非骨科手术被收入重症监护病房(ICU)或手术室(OR),则定义为有必要启动TA。对院外、急诊科和医院记录进行了审查。审查了验尸官记录以及研究期间所有创伤入院患者的病历,以确保在现场被放行的患者没有被误诊。
192名患者符合研究标准。85名患者(44%)被转运至急诊科,其中12名启动了TA。这些患者中有10名是EMT-P要求启动TA的,另外2名是根据急诊科创伤诊疗方案启动TA的。被EMT-P判定需要启动TA的2名患者被收入了ICU/OR,而根据急诊科创伤诊疗方案确定需要启动TA的患者中没有一人被收入ICU/OR。两名最初情况稳定、未启动TA的患者在到达急诊科后病情恶化。两人均被收入ICU。护理人员对小儿钝性创伤患者是否需要启动TA的判断的敏感性和特异性分别为50%(95%CI 9.2 - 90.8)和87.7%(95%CI 78.0 - 93.6)。阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为16.7%(95%CI 2.9 - 49.1)和97.3%(95%CI 89.6 - 99.5)。根据对验尸官和创伤入院记录的审查,在现场被放行的患者中没有一人被误诊。
本次调查结果表明,一小部分小儿钝性创伤患者需要启动TA。护理人员仅对小儿钝性创伤患者是否需要启动TA的判断不够敏感,无法用于临床。2名最初情况稳定的患者病情恶化解释了这种低敏感性。护理人员在现场的处置决定始终是准确的。对于一些未受伤的小儿创伤患者,紧急医疗服务(EMS)不进行转运可能是可以接受的。看似稳定的受伤小儿创伤患者可能在受伤后不久病情恶化。然而,如果小儿患者看起来受伤,需要从现场转运并由创伤专科医生进行检查。最后,在护理人员的判断能够作为启动TA的唯一预测指标之前,必须通过针对城市、农村和郊区EMS系统的更大规模研究进一步明确其作用。