美国急诊科的电视创伤使用情况。

IF 15.7 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY JAMA surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.3758
Zain G Hashmi,Omar Rokayak,Krislyn M Boggs,Kori S Zachrison,Janice A Espinola,Molly P Jarman,Jan O Jansen,Jayme E Locke,Jeffrey D Kerby,Carlos A Camargo
{"title":"美国急诊科的电视创伤使用情况。","authors":"Zain G Hashmi,Omar Rokayak,Krislyn M Boggs,Kori S Zachrison,Janice A Espinola,Molly P Jarman,Jan O Jansen,Jayme E Locke,Jeffrey D Kerby,Carlos A Camargo","doi":"10.1001/jamasurg.2024.3758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance\r\nNearly 30 million predominantly rural US residents lack timely access to trauma care expertise available at level I or II trauma centers. Telehealth is an established approach to improve access to health care expertise using remote consultation; however, the prevalence of use of telehealth in trauma (teletrauma) across the US is not known.\r\n\r\nObjective\r\nTo examine the prevalence of, trends in, and factors associated with teletrauma use and adoption among US emergency departments (EDs).\r\n\r\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\r\nThis survey study included data from the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-USA survey from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Each year, a 1-page survey was sent to the directors of nonfederal, nonspecialty EDs by mail and email up to 3 times; nonresponders were further contacted via telephone to complete the survey. Data were analyzed from January to March 2023.\r\n\r\nMain Outcomes and Measures\r\nThe primary outcome was self-reported ED use of teletrauma for each year studied. Additional measures included data regarding self-reported use of any other telehealth service and ED characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess ED characteristics associated with teletrauma use in 2020 and teletrauma adoption between 2017 and 2020.\r\n\r\nResults\r\nOf 5586 EDs in the US in 2020, 4512 had available teletrauma survey data (80.8% response rate); 379 (8.4%) of these EDs reported teletrauma use. In contrast, 2726 (60.4%) reported use of any other telehealth service. Teletrauma use (among EDs with any telehealth use) ranged between 0% in Alabama; Connecticut; Washington, DC; Indiana; New Jersey; Nevada; Oklahoma; Oregon; Rhode Island; and South Carolina to more than 60% in Arkansas (39 of 64 [60.9%]), South Dakota (31 of 41 [75.6%]), and North Dakota (30 of 35 [85.7%]). Factors associated with teletrauma use included rural location (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% CI, 1.77-3.36), critical access hospital (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.83-3.88), and basic stroke hospital vs nonstroke hospital (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.32-2.30) designations. Factors associated with adoption of teletrauma by 2020 included critical access hospital (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.35-2.90) and basic stroke hospital vs nonstroke hospital (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.94) designation.\r\n\r\nConclusion and Relevance\r\nThis survey study found that teletrauma use lagged significantly behind use of other telehealth services in US EDs in 2020. While most EDs using teletrauma were located in rural areas, there was significant state-level variation in teletrauma use. Future research is needed on how teletrauma is being used and to identify barriers to its wider implementation.","PeriodicalId":14690,"journal":{"name":"JAMA surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teletrauma Use in US Emergency Departments.\",\"authors\":\"Zain G Hashmi,Omar Rokayak,Krislyn M Boggs,Kori S Zachrison,Janice A Espinola,Molly P Jarman,Jan O Jansen,Jayme E Locke,Jeffrey D Kerby,Carlos A Camargo\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamasurg.2024.3758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Importance\\r\\nNearly 30 million predominantly rural US residents lack timely access to trauma care expertise available at level I or II trauma centers. Telehealth is an established approach to improve access to health care expertise using remote consultation; however, the prevalence of use of telehealth in trauma (teletrauma) across the US is not known.\\r\\n\\r\\nObjective\\r\\nTo examine the prevalence of, trends in, and factors associated with teletrauma use and adoption among US emergency departments (EDs).\\r\\n\\r\\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\\r\\nThis survey study included data from the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-USA survey from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Each year, a 1-page survey was sent to the directors of nonfederal, nonspecialty EDs by mail and email up to 3 times; nonresponders were further contacted via telephone to complete the survey. Data were analyzed from January to March 2023.\\r\\n\\r\\nMain Outcomes and Measures\\r\\nThe primary outcome was self-reported ED use of teletrauma for each year studied. Additional measures included data regarding self-reported use of any other telehealth service and ED characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess ED characteristics associated with teletrauma use in 2020 and teletrauma adoption between 2017 and 2020.\\r\\n\\r\\nResults\\r\\nOf 5586 EDs in the US in 2020, 4512 had available teletrauma survey data (80.8% response rate); 379 (8.4%) of these EDs reported teletrauma use. In contrast, 2726 (60.4%) reported use of any other telehealth service. Teletrauma use (among EDs with any telehealth use) ranged between 0% in Alabama; Connecticut; Washington, DC; Indiana; New Jersey; Nevada; Oklahoma; Oregon; Rhode Island; and South Carolina to more than 60% in Arkansas (39 of 64 [60.9%]), South Dakota (31 of 41 [75.6%]), and North Dakota (30 of 35 [85.7%]). Factors associated with teletrauma use included rural location (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% CI, 1.77-3.36), critical access hospital (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.83-3.88), and basic stroke hospital vs nonstroke hospital (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.32-2.30) designations. Factors associated with adoption of teletrauma by 2020 included critical access hospital (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.35-2.90) and basic stroke hospital vs nonstroke hospital (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.94) designation.\\r\\n\\r\\nConclusion and Relevance\\r\\nThis survey study found that teletrauma use lagged significantly behind use of other telehealth services in US EDs in 2020. While most EDs using teletrauma were located in rural areas, there was significant state-level variation in teletrauma use. Future research is needed on how teletrauma is being used and to identify barriers to its wider implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2024.3758\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2024.3758","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性美国有近 3,000 万以农村为主的居民无法及时获得一级或二级创伤中心提供的创伤护理专业技术。远程医疗是一种利用远程会诊改善医疗保健专业技术获取途径的成熟方法;然而,远程医疗在全美创伤(远程创伤)领域的使用普及率尚不清楚。目标研究远程创伤在美国急诊科(ED)中的使用和采用的普及率、趋势及相关因素。每年,通过邮件和电子邮件向非联邦、非专业急诊科主任发送一份 1 页纸的调查问卷,最多可发送 3 次;未回复者将通过电话进一步联系,以完成调查问卷。主要结果和测量指标主要结果是研究对象每年自我报告的急诊室使用电视创伤的情况。其他测量指标包括自我报告的其他远程医疗服务使用情况数据和急诊室特征。结果在 2020 年美国的 5586 家急诊室中,4512 家有可用的远程创伤调查数据(回复率为 80.8%);其中 379 家(8.4%)报告了远程创伤的使用情况。相比之下,有 2726 家(60.4%)报告使用了任何其他远程医疗服务。在阿拉巴马州、康涅狄格州、华盛顿特区、印第安纳州、新泽西州、内华达州、俄克拉荷马州、俄勒冈州、罗得岛州和南卡罗来纳州,电视创伤的使用率(在使用任何远程医疗服务的 ED 中)从 0% 到 60% 以上不等,阿肯色州(64 家中有 39 家 [60.9%])、南达科他州(41 家中有 31 家 [75.6%])和北达科他州(35 家中有 30 家 [85.7%])。与使用电视创伤相关的因素包括:农村地区(几率比 [OR],2.44;95% CI,1.77-3.36)、关键通道医院(OR,2.67;95% CI,1.83-3.88)、基本卒中医院与非卒中医院(OR,1.74;95% CI,1.32-2.30)。到 2020 年,与采用远程创伤相关的因素包括关键通道医院(OR,1.98;95% CI,1.35-2.90)和基本卒中医院与非卒中医院(OR,1.42;95% CI,1.04-1.94)。虽然大多数使用远程创伤治疗的急诊室位于农村地区,但各州在远程创伤治疗的使用方面存在显著差异。未来需要对远程创伤的使用情况进行研究,并找出其广泛应用的障碍。
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
Teletrauma Use in US Emergency Departments.
Importance Nearly 30 million predominantly rural US residents lack timely access to trauma care expertise available at level I or II trauma centers. Telehealth is an established approach to improve access to health care expertise using remote consultation; however, the prevalence of use of telehealth in trauma (teletrauma) across the US is not known. Objective To examine the prevalence of, trends in, and factors associated with teletrauma use and adoption among US emergency departments (EDs). Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study included data from the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-USA survey from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Each year, a 1-page survey was sent to the directors of nonfederal, nonspecialty EDs by mail and email up to 3 times; nonresponders were further contacted via telephone to complete the survey. Data were analyzed from January to March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was self-reported ED use of teletrauma for each year studied. Additional measures included data regarding self-reported use of any other telehealth service and ED characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess ED characteristics associated with teletrauma use in 2020 and teletrauma adoption between 2017 and 2020. Results Of 5586 EDs in the US in 2020, 4512 had available teletrauma survey data (80.8% response rate); 379 (8.4%) of these EDs reported teletrauma use. In contrast, 2726 (60.4%) reported use of any other telehealth service. Teletrauma use (among EDs with any telehealth use) ranged between 0% in Alabama; Connecticut; Washington, DC; Indiana; New Jersey; Nevada; Oklahoma; Oregon; Rhode Island; and South Carolina to more than 60% in Arkansas (39 of 64 [60.9%]), South Dakota (31 of 41 [75.6%]), and North Dakota (30 of 35 [85.7%]). Factors associated with teletrauma use included rural location (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% CI, 1.77-3.36), critical access hospital (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.83-3.88), and basic stroke hospital vs nonstroke hospital (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.32-2.30) designations. Factors associated with adoption of teletrauma by 2020 included critical access hospital (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.35-2.90) and basic stroke hospital vs nonstroke hospital (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.94) designation. Conclusion and Relevance This survey study found that teletrauma use lagged significantly behind use of other telehealth services in US EDs in 2020. While most EDs using teletrauma were located in rural areas, there was significant state-level variation in teletrauma use. Future research is needed on how teletrauma is being used and to identify barriers to its wider implementation.
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
JAMA surgery
JAMA surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
20.80
自引率
3.60%
发文量
400
期刊介绍: JAMA Surgery, an international peer-reviewed journal established in 1920, is the official publication of the Association of VA Surgeons, the Pacific Coast Surgical Association, and the Surgical Outcomes Club.It is a proud member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications.
期刊最新文献
Error in Figure. Finding Time and Energy to Exercise-5 Tips for Surgeons. Pain Assessment in Older Adults After Traumatic Injury. Routine Imaging or Symptomatic Follow-Up After Resection of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Stomach-Preserving Surgery for Early Gastric Cancer.
×
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