...
首页> 外文期刊>European journal of emergency medicine: Official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine >Identification of adult septic patients in the prehospital setting: A comparison of two screening tools and clinical judgment
【24h】

Identification of adult septic patients in the prehospital setting: A comparison of two screening tools and clinical judgment

机译:院前成人败血症患者的鉴定:两种筛查工具的比较和临床判断

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Timely identification and treatment of sepsis is crucial for patient outcome. The aim of this study was to compare two previously unvalidated prehospital sepsis screening tools with clinical judgment by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel with respect to identification of septic patients. Patients and Methods: We carried out a retrospective cross-sectional study of 353 adult patients, transported by the EMS, with a hospital discharge International Classification of Diseases code consistent with sepsis. We analyzed EMS records for the identification of sepsis according to two screening tools and clinical judgment by EMS providers. The Robson screening tool includes temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, altered mental status, plasma glucose, and a history suggestive of a new infection. BAS 90-30-90 refers to the vital signs: oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure. McNemar's two related samples test was used to compare the sensitivity of the two screening tools with the sensitivity of clinical judgment. Results: The Robson screening tool had a sensitivity of 75% (18 out of 24 patients for whom all parameters were documented, P<0.001, as compared with clinical judgment). BAS 90-30-90 had a sensitivity of 43% (76 out of 175 patients, P<0.001). EMS personnel documented suspected sepsis in 42 out of 353 (12%) patients with sepsis. Conclusion: The Robson screening tool had a sensitivity superior to both BAS 90-30-90 and clinical judgment. This supports our hypothesis that the implementation of a screening tool could lead to increased prehospital identification of sepsis, which may enable a more timely treatment of these patients.
机译:背景:败血症的及时发现和治疗对于患者的预后至关重要。这项研究的目的是比较两种先前未经验证的院前败血症筛查工具,以及急诊医疗服务人员在鉴定败血症患者方面的临床判断。患者和方法:我们对353名成年患者进行了回顾性横断面研究,这些患者由EMS运送,出院时符合脓毒症的国际疾病分类代码。我们根据两种筛选工具和EMS提供者的临床判断分析了EMS记录,以鉴定败血症。罗布森(Robson)筛查工具包括温度,心率,呼吸频率,精神状态改变,血糖水平以及暗示有新感染的病史。 BAS 90-30-90是指生命体征:氧饱和度,呼吸频率和收缩压。 McNemar的两个相关样本测试用于比较两个筛选工具的敏感性和临床判断的敏感性。结果:Robson筛查工具的敏感性为75%(记录了所有参数的24例患者中有18例,与临床判断相比,P <0.001)。 BAS 90-30-90的敏感性为43%(175名患者中有76名,P <0.001)。 EMS人员记录了353名败血症患者中的42名(占12%)可疑败血症。结论:Robson筛查工具的灵敏度优于BAS 90-30-90和临床判断。这支持了我们的假设,即筛查工具的实施可能导致院前对败血症的鉴定增加,这可能使这些患者得到更及时的治疗。

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