曼彻斯特分诊系统在头晕患者中的临床应用--急诊科观察研究

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING International Emergency Nursing Pub Date : 2024-01-30 DOI:10.1016/j.ienj.2023.101403
Monika Kogej , Julia Scherzberg , Sylvia Schacher , Moritz Berger , Matthias Seidel , Ingo Gräff
{"title":"曼彻斯特分诊系统在头晕患者中的临床应用--急诊科观察研究","authors":"Monika Kogej ,&nbsp;Julia Scherzberg ,&nbsp;Sylvia Schacher ,&nbsp;Moritz Berger ,&nbsp;Matthias Seidel ,&nbsp;Ingo Gräff","doi":"10.1016/j.ienj.2023.101403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Dizziness is a common symptom with diverse causes, including ear-nose-throat, internal, neurological, or psychiatric origins. While for most parts treatable in nonemergency settings, it can also signal time-critical conditions, like an unnoticed stroke, requiring prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent lasting harm or death. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the Manchester Triage System in classifying patients presenting with dizziness based on final diagnoses and patient outcomes, as no specific flow chart exists for this symptom in the MTS.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Monocentric, retrospective observational study. To test the validity of the MTS in the triage of dizziness patients, the treatment level was used as a surrogate parameter. We grouped the patients into outpatient, normal ward and intermediate care/intensive care unit (IMC/ICU) patients. Furthermore, we analyzed the dizziness patients in subgroups based on the origin of their dizziness to identify potential improvements for the MTS. Patients with dizziness and stroke, who represent the most vulnerable group of dizziness patients, were also evaluated separately.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During the observation period, 2958 patients presented at the ED with the symptom dizziness and 52 017 without, who formed the reference group. When examining the relationship between triage level and subsequent treatment level, a larger deviation is observed compared to the reference group. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) regarding hospital admission in general showed an area under the curve (AUC) in the subgroup with dizziness due to a central nervous system causes (n=838) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.65 - 0.72) and in the subgroup of dizziness by other organic cause (n=901), an AUC of 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 - 0.68). The reference group had an AUC 0.75 (95% CI 0.75 - 0.76) here. In relation to admission to IMC/ICU, the results were similar. The sensitivity of the MTS in terms of an adequate initial assessment of dizziness patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was 0.39, the specificity was 0.91 (reference group sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.82).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In terms of construct validity, the present study revealed that the use of MTS as a priority triage assessment tool was found to be less accurate in emergency patients with dizziness, particularly those diagnosed with stroke/TIA, when compared to other emergency patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48914,"journal":{"name":"International Emergency Nursing","volume":"73 ","pages":"Article 101403"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical use of the manchester triage system in patients with dizziness – An observational study in the emergency department\",\"authors\":\"Monika Kogej ,&nbsp;Julia Scherzberg ,&nbsp;Sylvia Schacher ,&nbsp;Moritz Berger ,&nbsp;Matthias Seidel ,&nbsp;Ingo Gräff\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ienj.2023.101403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Dizziness is a common symptom with diverse causes, including ear-nose-throat, internal, neurological, or psychiatric origins. While for most parts treatable in nonemergency settings, it can also signal time-critical conditions, like an unnoticed stroke, requiring prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent lasting harm or death. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the Manchester Triage System in classifying patients presenting with dizziness based on final diagnoses and patient outcomes, as no specific flow chart exists for this symptom in the MTS.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Monocentric, retrospective observational study. To test the validity of the MTS in the triage of dizziness patients, the treatment level was used as a surrogate parameter. We grouped the patients into outpatient, normal ward and intermediate care/intensive care unit (IMC/ICU) patients. Furthermore, we analyzed the dizziness patients in subgroups based on the origin of their dizziness to identify potential improvements for the MTS. Patients with dizziness and stroke, who represent the most vulnerable group of dizziness patients, were also evaluated separately.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During the observation period, 2958 patients presented at the ED with the symptom dizziness and 52 017 without, who formed the reference group. When examining the relationship between triage level and subsequent treatment level, a larger deviation is observed compared to the reference group. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) regarding hospital admission in general showed an area under the curve (AUC) in the subgroup with dizziness due to a central nervous system causes (n=838) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.65 - 0.72) and in the subgroup of dizziness by other organic cause (n=901), an AUC of 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 - 0.68). The reference group had an AUC 0.75 (95% CI 0.75 - 0.76) here. In relation to admission to IMC/ICU, the results were similar. The sensitivity of the MTS in terms of an adequate initial assessment of dizziness patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was 0.39, the specificity was 0.91 (reference group sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.82).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In terms of construct validity, the present study revealed that the use of MTS as a priority triage assessment tool was found to be less accurate in emergency patients with dizziness, particularly those diagnosed with stroke/TIA, when compared to other emergency patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Emergency Nursing\",\"volume\":\"73 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101403\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Emergency Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X23001428\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Emergency Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X23001428","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言头晕是一种常见症状,其原因多种多样,包括耳鼻喉、内脏、神经或精神原因。虽然大多数头晕在非急诊情况下可以治疗,但它也可能预示着时间紧迫的情况,如未被注意到的中风,需要及时诊断和治疗,以防造成持久伤害或死亡。本研究旨在评估曼彻斯特分诊系统根据最终诊断和患者预后对头晕患者进行分类的有效性,因为曼彻斯特分诊系统中没有针对这一症状的具体流程图。为了检验 MTS 在头晕患者分诊中的有效性,我们使用了治疗水平作为替代参数。我们将患者分为门诊患者、普通病房患者和中级护理/重症监护室(IMC/ICU)患者。此外,我们还根据头晕的起因对头晕患者进行了分组分析,以确定 MTS 的潜在改进措施。结果在观察期间,有 2958 名患者在急诊室出现头晕症状,52017 名患者没有头晕症状,他们构成了参照组。在研究分诊级别与后续治疗级别之间的关系时,观察到与参照组相比存在较大偏差。关于入院治疗的接收器操作特征(ROC)显示,中枢神经系统原因引起的头晕亚组(838 人)的曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.69(95% CI 0.65 - 0.72),其他器质性原因引起的头晕亚组(901 人)的曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.64(95% CI 0.60 - 0.68)。参照组的AUC为0.75(95% CI 0.75 - 0.76)。在 IMC/ICU 入院方面,结果类似。就对中风或短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)头晕患者进行充分初步评估而言,MTS 的灵敏度为 0.39,特异度为 0.91(参照组灵敏度为 0.72,特异度为 0.82)。
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
Clinical use of the manchester triage system in patients with dizziness – An observational study in the emergency department

Introduction

Dizziness is a common symptom with diverse causes, including ear-nose-throat, internal, neurological, or psychiatric origins. While for most parts treatable in nonemergency settings, it can also signal time-critical conditions, like an unnoticed stroke, requiring prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent lasting harm or death. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the Manchester Triage System in classifying patients presenting with dizziness based on final diagnoses and patient outcomes, as no specific flow chart exists for this symptom in the MTS.

Methods

Monocentric, retrospective observational study. To test the validity of the MTS in the triage of dizziness patients, the treatment level was used as a surrogate parameter. We grouped the patients into outpatient, normal ward and intermediate care/intensive care unit (IMC/ICU) patients. Furthermore, we analyzed the dizziness patients in subgroups based on the origin of their dizziness to identify potential improvements for the MTS. Patients with dizziness and stroke, who represent the most vulnerable group of dizziness patients, were also evaluated separately.

Results

During the observation period, 2958 patients presented at the ED with the symptom dizziness and 52 017 without, who formed the reference group. When examining the relationship between triage level and subsequent treatment level, a larger deviation is observed compared to the reference group. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) regarding hospital admission in general showed an area under the curve (AUC) in the subgroup with dizziness due to a central nervous system causes (n=838) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.65 - 0.72) and in the subgroup of dizziness by other organic cause (n=901), an AUC of 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 - 0.68). The reference group had an AUC 0.75 (95% CI 0.75 - 0.76) here. In relation to admission to IMC/ICU, the results were similar. The sensitivity of the MTS in terms of an adequate initial assessment of dizziness patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was 0.39, the specificity was 0.91 (reference group sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.82).

Conclusion

In terms of construct validity, the present study revealed that the use of MTS as a priority triage assessment tool was found to be less accurate in emergency patients with dizziness, particularly those diagnosed with stroke/TIA, when compared to other emergency patients.

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
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: International Emergency Nursing is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to nurses and other professionals involved in emergency care. It aims to promote excellence through dissemination of high quality research findings, specialist knowledge and discussion of professional issues that reflect the diversity of this field. With an international readership and authorship, it provides a platform for practitioners worldwide to communicate and enhance the evidence-base of emergency care. The journal publishes a broad range of papers, from personal reflection to primary research findings, created by first-time through to reputable authors from a number of disciplines. It brings together research from practice, education, theory, and operational management, relevant to all levels of staff working in emergency care settings worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Determination of the relationship between competencies in disaster nursing management and perceived stress: The intermediary role of resilience Emergency medical service nurses’ experiences and perspectives on a protocol change of pre-hospital preventive immobilization of spinal injuries after trauma: A qualitative study Decreasing hemolysis rates through phlebotomy education The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in cancer criteria. An Evaluation and recommendations for the management of neutropenia in the emergency department What is the optimal outcome for evaluating the triage Systems? Insights from a prospective observational study
×
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