首页> 外文OA文献 >Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury at the Emergency Department and Hospital Admission in Europe: A Survey of 71 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study
【2h】

Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury at the Emergency Department and Hospital Admission in Europe: A Survey of 71 Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study

机译:在欧洲急诊部和医院入院的温和创伤性脑损伤管理:对参加中心-TBI学习的71个神经统治中心的调查

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Previous studies have indicated that there is no consensus about management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) at the emergency department (ED) and during hospital admission. We aim to study variability between management policies for TBI patients at the ED and at the hospital ward across Europe. Centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study received questionnaires about different phases of TBI care. These questionnaires included 71 questions about TBI management at the ED and at the hospital ward. We found differences in how centers defined mTBI. For example, 40 centers (59%) defined mTBI as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score between 13 and 15 and 26 (38%) defined it as a GCS score between 14 and 15. At the ED various guidelines for the use of head computed tomography (CT) in mTBI patients were used; 32 centers (49%) used national guidelines, 10 centers (15%) local guidelines, and 14 centers (21%) used no guidelines at all. Also, differences in indication for admission between centers were found. After ED discharge, 7 centers (10%) scheduled a routine follow-up appointment, whereas 38 (54%) did so only after ward admission. In conclusion, large between-center variation exists in policies for diagnostics, admission, and discharge decisions in patients with mTBI at the ED and in the hospital. Guidelines are not always operational in centers, and reported policies systematically diverge from what is recommended in those guidelines. The results of this study may be useful in the understanding of mTBI care in Europe and show the need for further studies on the effectiveness of different policies on outcome.
机译:以前的研究表明,在急诊部门(ED)和住院期间,对温和创伤性脑损伤(MTBI)的管理没有共识。我们的目标是在欧洲跨国公司和医院病房的TBI患者管理政策之间研究可变性。参与创伤性脑损伤(中心TBI)研究中的协同欧洲神经统计效果研究的中心接受了关于不同TBI护理阶段的问卷。这些调查问卷包括71个关于TBI管理的问题,在ED和医院病房。我们发现了Centers定义了MTBI的差异。例如,40个中心(59%)定义MTBI,作为Glasgow Coma Scale(GCS)分数在13和15和26之间,将其定义为14至15之间的GCS得分。在ED的各种指导方针之间使用MTBI患者的头部计算断层扫描(CT); 32个中心(49%)使用国家指南,10个中心(15%)地方指南,14个中心(21%)没有任何指导方针。此外,发现了中心之间入学迹象的差异。在ED放电后,7个中心(10%)预定了常规后续预约,而38(54%)只有在病房入场后。总之,在ED和医院的MTBI患者诊断,入场和排放决策的政策中存在大量之间的变化。指南并不总是在中心中运营,并报告的政策从这些指南中建议的建议系统地分歧。本研究的结果可能对欧洲MTBI护理的理解有用,并表明需要进一步研究不同政策对结果的有效性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

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