首页> 外文期刊>Prehospital and disaster medicine : >Impact of a Two-step Emergency Department Triage Model with START, then CTAS, on Patient Flow during a Simulated Mass-casualty Incident
【24h】

Impact of a Two-step Emergency Department Triage Model with START, then CTAS, on Patient Flow during a Simulated Mass-casualty Incident

机译:在模拟大规模伤亡事件中,先进行两步急诊分诊模型,然后再进行CTAS和CTAS对患者流量的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Introduction A high influx of patients during a mass-casualty incident (MCI) may disrupt patient flow in an already overcrowded emergency department (ED) that is functioning beyond its operating capacity. This pilot study examined the impact of a two-step ED triage model using Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) for pre-triage, followed by triage with the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), on patient flow during a MCI simulation exercise. Hypothesis/Problem It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in time intervals nor patient volumes at each patient-flow milestone. Methods Physicians and nurses participated in a computer-based tabletop disaster simulation exercise. Physicians were randomized into the intervention group using START, then CTAS, or the control group using START alone. Patient-flow milestones including time intervals and patient volumes from ED arrival to triage, ED arrival to bed assignment, ED arrival to physician assessment, and ED arrival to disposition decision were compared. Triage accuracy was compared for secondary purposes. Results There were no significant differences in the time interval from ED arrival to triage (mean difference 108 seconds; 95% CI, -353 to 596 seconds; P=1.0), ED arrival to bed assignment (mean difference 362 seconds; 95% CI, -1,269 to 545 seconds; P=1.0), ED arrival to physician assessment (mean difference 31 seconds; 95% CI, -1,104 to 348 seconds; P=0.92), and ED arrival to disposition decision (mean difference 175 seconds; 95% CI, -1,650 to 1,300 seconds; P=1.0) between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the volume of patients to be triaged (32% vs 34%; 95% CI for the difference -16% to 21%; P=1.0), assigned a bed (16% vs 21%; 95% CI for the difference -11% to 20%; P=1.0), assessed by a physician (20% vs 22%; 95% CI for the difference -14% to 19%; P=1.0), and with a disposition decision (20% vs 9%; 95% CI for the difference -25% to 4%; P=.34) between the two groups. The accuracy of triage was similar in both groups (57% vs 70%; 95% CI for the difference -15% to 41%; P=.46). Conclusion Experienced triage nurses were able to apply CTAS effectively during a MCI simulation exercise. A two-step ED triage model using START, then CTAS, had similar patient flow and triage accuracy when compared to START alone. Lee JS, Franc JM.
机译:简介在大规模伤亡事件(MCI)期间大量涌入的患者可能会扰乱本来已经人满为患的急诊科(ED),该急诊科的功能超出其运营能力。这项前期研究检查了两步ED分诊模型,该方法使用简单分诊和快速治疗(START)进行预分诊,然后使用加拿大分诊和敏锐度表(CTAS)进行分诊对MCI模拟练习中患者流量的影响。假设/问题假设在每个患者流里程碑,时间间隔和患者量都没有差异。方法医生和护士参加了基于计算机的桌面灾难模拟演习。医师被随机分为START组,CTAS组,CTAS组或对照组。比较了患者流程的里程碑,包括时间间隔和从ED到达分类到ED,ED到达床分配,ED到达医师评估以及ED到达处置决定的时间间隔和患者数量。比较分类的准确性是出于辅助目的。结果ED到达分诊的时间间隔无差异(平均差异108秒; 95%CI,-353至596秒; P = 1.0),ED到达床位分配(平均差异362秒; 95%CI) ,-1,269至545秒; P = 1.0),ED到达医师评估(平均差异31秒; 95%CI,-1,104至348秒; P = 0.92),ED到达处置决策(平均差异175秒;两组之间的相差为95%CI,-1,650至1,300秒; P = 1.0)。被分诊的患者数量没有显着差异(32%vs 34%; 95%CI差异-16%至21%; P = 1.0),分配了床位(16%vs 21%; 95% CI的差异为-11%至20%; P = 1.0),由医师评估(20%vs 22%; 95%的CI差异为-14%至19%; P = 1.0),并有处置决定两组之间的差异(20%比9%; 95%CI差异为-25%至4%; P = .34)。两组的分类准确度相似(57%比70%; 95%CI,差异为-15%至41%; P = .46)。结论有经验的分诊护士能够在MCI模拟练习中有效地应用CTAS。与仅使用START相比,使用START然后使用CTAS的两步ED分诊模型具有相似的患者流量和分诊准确性。 Lee JS,Franc JM。

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