首页> 外文期刊>Prehospital emergency care >Assessing the validity of the cincinnati prehospital stroke scale and the medic prehospital assessment for code stroke in an urban emergency medical services agency
【24h】

Assessing the validity of the cincinnati prehospital stroke scale and the medic prehospital assessment for code stroke in an urban emergency medical services agency

机译:在城市紧急医疗服务机构评估辛辛那提院前卒中量表和院前院对中风的评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two prehospital stroke screens in correctly classifying patients suspected of having a stroke. Secondarily, differences in the sensitivity and specificity of the two screening tools were assessed. Methods. We performed a retrospective assessment of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) and the Medic Prehospital Assessment for Code Stroke (Med PACS) between March 1, 2011, and September 30, 2011, in a single emergency medical services (EMS) agency with seven local hospitals all classified as stroke-capable. We obtained data for this analysis from the EMS electronic patient care reports (ePCRs) and the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-S) registries maintained by the two local health care systems by matching on patient identifiers. The Med PACS was developed specifically for the EMS agency under study by a local team of neurologists, emergency physicians, and paramedics. All of the physical assessment elements of the CPSS were included within the Med PACS. Two additional physical assessment items, gaze and leg motor function, were included in the Med PACS. We classified patients as CPSS-positive or-negative and Med PACS-positive or-negative if any one of the physical assessment findings was present. We determined the presence of a hospital discharge diagnosis of stroke from GWTG-S. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with resultant 95% confidence intervals. Results. We enrolled 416 patients in this study, of whom 186 (44.7%) were diagnosed with a stroke. The Med PACS scale demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.742 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.672-0.802), while the sensitivity for the CPSS was 0.790 (95% CI 0.723-0.845). The sensitivity of the CPSS was significantly higher than that of the Med PACS, with a difference of 0.048 (95% CI 0.009-0.088; p = 0.011). The specificities of these two scales were low, Med PACS 0.326 (95% CI 0.267-0.391) vs. CPSS 0.239 (95% CI 0.187-0.300), and the specificity of the Med PACS was significantly higher compared with the CPSS, with a difference in specificity of 0.086 (95% CI 0.042-0.131), p 0.001. Conclusion. The two stroke scales under study demonstrated low sensitivity and specificity, with each scale performing marginally better in one of the two metrics assessed.
机译:目标。这项研究的主要目的是评估两个院前中风筛查在正确分类疑似中风患者中的有效性。其次,评估了两种筛选工具在敏感性和特异性上的差异。方法。在2011年3月1日至2011年9月30日之间,我们在一家由七个独立机构组成的紧急医疗服务(EMS)机构中,对辛辛那提院前卒中量表(CPSS)和院前院对代码性卒中进行了回顾性评估(Med PACS)。所有当地医院都归类为中风医院。我们通过匹配两个患者的标识符,从EMS电子患者护理报告(ePCR)和两个地方卫生保健系统维护的“中风指南”注册表(GWTG-S)注册表中获得了用于此分析的数据。 Med PACS由当地的神经科医生,急诊医生和护理人员团队专门为正在研究的EMS机构开发。 CPSS的所有物理评估要素都包含在Med PACS中。 Med PACS还包括两个附加的身体评估项目,即注视和腿部运动功能。如果存在任何一项身体评估结果,我们将患者分为CPSS阳性或阴性和Med PACS阳性或阴性。我们确定了根据GWTG-S对中风的出院诊断。我们计算了95%的置信区间的敏感性和特异性。结果。我们在这项研究中招募了416名患者,其中186名(44.7%)被诊断为中风。 Med PACS量表的灵敏度为0.742(95%置信区间[CI] 0.672-0.802),而CPSS的灵敏度为0.790(95%CI 0.723-0.845)。 CPSS的灵敏度显着高于Med PACS的灵敏度,差异为0.048(95%CI 0.009-0.088; p = 0.011)。这两个量表的特异性均较低,Med PACS 0.326(95%CI 0.267-0.391)与CPSS 0.239(95%CI 0.187-0.300)相比,Med PACS的特异性显着高于CPSS。特异性差异为0.086(95%CI 0.042-0.131),p <0.001。结论。所研究的两个卒中量表显示出较低的敏感性和特异性,在评估的两个指标之一中,每个量表的表现都略好。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号