评估救护车护士与急诊医生计算的 HEART 分数的诊断准确性和可靠性。

Nancy W P L van der Waarden, G Sander de Wolf, Kirsten F van Meerten, Barbra E Backus
{"title":"评估救护车护士与急诊医生计算的 HEART 分数的诊断准确性和可靠性。","authors":"Nancy W P L van der Waarden, G Sander de Wolf, Kirsten F van Meerten, Barbra E Backus","doi":"10.1097/TME.0000000000000497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chest pain is a common complaint for consultation of emergency medical services worldwide. Currently, ambulance nurses (AN) base their decision to transport a patient to the hospital on their own professional experience. The HEART score could improve prehospital risk stratification and patient treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the HEART score between AN and emergency physicians (EP). A retrospective analysis on data of 569 patients 18 years and older included in two prehospital HEART score studies. The endpoints are interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC]) and predictive accuracy for major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of the HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. Predictive accuracy is sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV) and negative predicted value (NPV). Interrater reliability was good for total HEART score (ICC 0.78; 95% CI 0.75-0.81). However, focusing on the decision to transport a patient, the ICC dropped to 0.62 (95% CI 0.62-0.70). History and Risk factors caused the most variability. Predictive accuracy of HEART differed between AN and EP. The HEART score calculated by AN was sensitivity 91%, specificity 38%, PPV 26%, and NPV 95%. The HEART score calculated by EP was sensitivity 98%, specificity 32%, PPV -26%, and NPV 99%. With a cut-off value of 0-2 for a low HEART score, predictive accuracy significantly improved for the HEART score calculated by AN: sensitivity 98%, specificity 18%, PPV 22%, and NPV 98%. Our study shows a moderate interrater reliability and lower predictive accuracy of a HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. AN underestimate the risk of patients with acute chest pain, with the largest discrepancies in the elements History and Risk factors. Reconsidering the cut-off values of the low-risk HEART category, as well as a carefully developed training program, will possibly lead to a higher interrater reliability of the HEART score and higher predictive accuracy used by AN.</p>","PeriodicalId":45446,"journal":{"name":"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of the HEART Score Calculated by Ambulance Nurses Versus Emergency Physicians.\",\"authors\":\"Nancy W P L van der Waarden, G Sander de Wolf, Kirsten F van Meerten, Barbra E Backus\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TME.0000000000000497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Chest pain is a common complaint for consultation of emergency medical services worldwide. Currently, ambulance nurses (AN) base their decision to transport a patient to the hospital on their own professional experience. The HEART score could improve prehospital risk stratification and patient treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the HEART score between AN and emergency physicians (EP). A retrospective analysis on data of 569 patients 18 years and older included in two prehospital HEART score studies. The endpoints are interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC]) and predictive accuracy for major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of the HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. Predictive accuracy is sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV) and negative predicted value (NPV). Interrater reliability was good for total HEART score (ICC 0.78; 95% CI 0.75-0.81). However, focusing on the decision to transport a patient, the ICC dropped to 0.62 (95% CI 0.62-0.70). History and Risk factors caused the most variability. Predictive accuracy of HEART differed between AN and EP. The HEART score calculated by AN was sensitivity 91%, specificity 38%, PPV 26%, and NPV 95%. The HEART score calculated by EP was sensitivity 98%, specificity 32%, PPV -26%, and NPV 99%. With a cut-off value of 0-2 for a low HEART score, predictive accuracy significantly improved for the HEART score calculated by AN: sensitivity 98%, specificity 18%, PPV 22%, and NPV 98%. Our study shows a moderate interrater reliability and lower predictive accuracy of a HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. AN underestimate the risk of patients with acute chest pain, with the largest discrepancies in the elements History and Risk factors. Reconsidering the cut-off values of the low-risk HEART category, as well as a carefully developed training program, will possibly lead to a higher interrater reliability of the HEART score and higher predictive accuracy used by AN.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000497\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

胸痛是全世界急诊医疗服务中常见的主诉。目前,救护车护士(AN)根据自己的专业经验决定是否将病人送往医院。HEART 评分可改善院前风险分层和患者治疗。本研究旨在调查救护护士和急诊医生(EP)之间 HEART 评分的互评可靠性和预测准确性。对两项院前 HEART 评分研究中 569 名 18 岁及以上患者的数据进行回顾性分析。研究终点是院前急救医生与急诊科医生计算的 HEART 评分的互测可靠性(类内相关性 [ICC])和 30 天内重大心脏不良事件的预测准确性。预测准确性包括灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值 (PPV) 和阴性预测值 (NPV)。HEART 总分的互译可靠性良好(ICC 0.78;95% CI 0.75-0.81)。但是,在决定是否转运病人时,ICC 降至 0.62 (95% CI 0.62-0.70)。病史和风险因素造成的差异最大。AN和EP的HEART预测准确性不同。AN 计算的 HEART 评分灵敏度为 91%,特异性为 38%,PPV 为 26%,NPV 为 95%。通过 EP 计算的 HEART 分数灵敏度为 98%,特异性为 32%,PPV 为 -26%,NPV 为 99%。当 HEART 低分的临界值为 0-2 时,由 AN 计算的 HEART 分数的预测准确性显著提高:灵敏度为 98%,特异性为 18%,PPV 为 22%,NPV 为 98%。我们的研究表明,与 EP 相比,由 AN 计算的 HEART 评分的互测可靠性和预测准确性较低。AN低估了急性胸痛患者的风险,其中病史和风险因素的差异最大。重新考虑低风险 HEART 类别的临界值,并精心制定培训计划,将有可能提高 AN 使用 HEART 评分的互测可靠性和预测准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of the HEART Score Calculated by Ambulance Nurses Versus Emergency Physicians.

Chest pain is a common complaint for consultation of emergency medical services worldwide. Currently, ambulance nurses (AN) base their decision to transport a patient to the hospital on their own professional experience. The HEART score could improve prehospital risk stratification and patient treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the HEART score between AN and emergency physicians (EP). A retrospective analysis on data of 569 patients 18 years and older included in two prehospital HEART score studies. The endpoints are interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC]) and predictive accuracy for major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of the HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. Predictive accuracy is sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV) and negative predicted value (NPV). Interrater reliability was good for total HEART score (ICC 0.78; 95% CI 0.75-0.81). However, focusing on the decision to transport a patient, the ICC dropped to 0.62 (95% CI 0.62-0.70). History and Risk factors caused the most variability. Predictive accuracy of HEART differed between AN and EP. The HEART score calculated by AN was sensitivity 91%, specificity 38%, PPV 26%, and NPV 95%. The HEART score calculated by EP was sensitivity 98%, specificity 32%, PPV -26%, and NPV 99%. With a cut-off value of 0-2 for a low HEART score, predictive accuracy significantly improved for the HEART score calculated by AN: sensitivity 98%, specificity 18%, PPV 22%, and NPV 98%. Our study shows a moderate interrater reliability and lower predictive accuracy of a HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. AN underestimate the risk of patients with acute chest pain, with the largest discrepancies in the elements History and Risk factors. Reconsidering the cut-off values of the low-risk HEART category, as well as a carefully developed training program, will possibly lead to a higher interrater reliability of the HEART score and higher predictive accuracy used by AN.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal is a peer-reviewed journal designed to meet the needs of advanced practice clinicians, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, healthcare professionals, and clinical and academic educators in emergency nursing. Articles contain evidence-based material that can be applied to daily practice. Continuing Education opportunities are available in each issue. Feature articles focus on in-depth, state of the science content relevant to advanced practice nurses and experienced clinicians in emergency care. Ongoing Departments Include: Cases of Note Radiology Rounds Research to Practice Applied Pharmacology
期刊最新文献
Breaking Barriers and Navigating the Future of Emergency Care: The Role of the Emergency Nurse Practitioner. Executive Leadership and Entrepreneurship of Emergency Nurse Practitioners: Pioneering Pathways in Emergency Care. Founding a Professional Organization: An Interview with American Academy of Emergency Nurse Practitioners' Founder, Dr. Elda Ramirez. Historical Evolution of Emergency Nurse Practitioner Education: A Comprehensive Review. The Evolution of the Emergency Nurse Practitioner Role: A Historical Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1