识别适合通过即日急诊服务管理的内科病人的策略:系统回顾。

IF 3.6 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinical Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100230
Catherine Atkin, Rhea Khosla, John Belsham, Hannah Hegarty, Cait Hennessy, Elizabeth Sapey
{"title":"识别适合通过即日急诊服务管理的内科病人的策略:系统回顾。","authors":"Catherine Atkin, Rhea Khosla, John Belsham, Hannah Hegarty, Cait Hennessy, Elizabeth Sapey","doi":"10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Same-day emergency care (SDEC) in unplanned and emergency care is an NHS England (NHSE) priority. Optimal use of these services requires rapid identification of suitable patients. NHSE suggests the use of one tool for this purpose. This systematic review compares studies that evaluate the performance of selection tools for SDEC pathways. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Three scores were evaluated: the Amb score (seven studies), Glasgow Admission Prediction Score (GAPS) (six studies) and Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) (two studies). There was heterogeneity in the populations assessed, exclusion criteria used and definitions used for SDEC suitability, with proportions of patients deemed 'suitable' for SDEC ranging from 20 to 80%. Reported score sensitivity and specificity ranged between 18-99% and 10-89%. Score performance could not be compared due to heterogeneity between studies. No studies assessed clinical implementation. The current evidence to support the use of a specific tool for SDEC is limited and requires further evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10492,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"100230"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11359741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategies to identify medical patients suitable for management through same-day emergency care services: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine Atkin, Rhea Khosla, John Belsham, Hannah Hegarty, Cait Hennessy, Elizabeth Sapey\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Same-day emergency care (SDEC) in unplanned and emergency care is an NHS England (NHSE) priority. Optimal use of these services requires rapid identification of suitable patients. NHSE suggests the use of one tool for this purpose. This systematic review compares studies that evaluate the performance of selection tools for SDEC pathways. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Three scores were evaluated: the Amb score (seven studies), Glasgow Admission Prediction Score (GAPS) (six studies) and Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) (two studies). There was heterogeneity in the populations assessed, exclusion criteria used and definitions used for SDEC suitability, with proportions of patients deemed 'suitable' for SDEC ranging from 20 to 80%. Reported score sensitivity and specificity ranged between 18-99% and 10-89%. Score performance could not be compared due to heterogeneity between studies. No studies assessed clinical implementation. The current evidence to support the use of a specific tool for SDEC is limited and requires further evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"100230\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11359741/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100230\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100230","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非计划性急诊护理中的当日急诊护理(SDEC)是英国国家医疗卫生服务体系(NHSE)的优先事项。这些服务的最佳利用需要快速识别合适的病人。NHSE 建议为此使用一种工具。本系统性综述对评估 SDEC 路径选择工具性能的研究进行了比较。九项研究符合纳入标准。对三种评分进行了评估:Amb 评分(7 项研究)、格拉斯哥入院预测评分 (GAPS)(6 项研究)和悉尼入院风险分流工具 (START)(2 项研究)。在评估人群、使用的排除标准和 SDEC 适宜性定义方面存在异质性,被认为 "适合 "SDEC 的患者比例从 20% 到 80% 不等。报告的评分敏感性和特异性介于 18-99% 和 10-89% 之间。由于不同研究之间存在异质性,因此无法对评分结果进行比较。没有研究对临床实施情况进行评估。目前支持针对 SDEC 使用特定工具的证据有限,需要进一步评估。
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
Strategies to identify medical patients suitable for management through same-day emergency care services: A systematic review.

Same-day emergency care (SDEC) in unplanned and emergency care is an NHS England (NHSE) priority. Optimal use of these services requires rapid identification of suitable patients. NHSE suggests the use of one tool for this purpose. This systematic review compares studies that evaluate the performance of selection tools for SDEC pathways. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Three scores were evaluated: the Amb score (seven studies), Glasgow Admission Prediction Score (GAPS) (six studies) and Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) (two studies). There was heterogeneity in the populations assessed, exclusion criteria used and definitions used for SDEC suitability, with proportions of patients deemed 'suitable' for SDEC ranging from 20 to 80%. Reported score sensitivity and specificity ranged between 18-99% and 10-89%. Score performance could not be compared due to heterogeneity between studies. No studies assessed clinical implementation. The current evidence to support the use of a specific tool for SDEC is limited and requires further evaluation.

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
Clinical Medicine
Clinical Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine is aimed at practising physicians in the UK and overseas and has relevance to all those managing or working within the healthcare sector. Available in print and online, the journal seeks to encourage high standards of medical care by promoting good clinical practice through original research, review and comment. The journal also includes a dedicated continuing medical education (CME) section in each issue. This presents the latest advances in a chosen specialty, with self-assessment questions at the end of each topic enabling CPD accreditation to be acquired. ISSN: 1470-2118 E-ISSN: 1473-4893 Frequency: 6 issues per year
期刊最新文献
Impact on clinical outcomes, surgical interventions, anaesthetic decisions and complication rates following implementation of the NICE OSA guidelines during preoperative screening. Thromboelastography for Rapid Diagnosis of Heparin-Like Anticoagulant Release During Anaphylaxis-Induced Coagulopathy in Systemic Mastocytosis: A Case Report. The feasibility of a novel national Quality Improvement programme for Tobacco Dependency Treatment Pathways in acute UK hospitals. Key concepts in diagnosing infection - when to treat and when not to. Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Hyperglycemic Hyperosmolar Syndrome in Patients with Cancer: A Multicenter 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