重症患者的 ABCDE 方法:对评估工具、遵守情况和报告结果的范围审查

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Resuscitation plus Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100763
Laura J. Bruinink , Marjolein Linders , Willem P. de Boode , Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit , Marije Hogeveen
{"title":"重症患者的 ABCDE 方法:对评估工具、遵守情况和报告结果的范围审查","authors":"Laura J. Bruinink ,&nbsp;Marjolein Linders ,&nbsp;Willem P. de Boode ,&nbsp;Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ,&nbsp;Marije Hogeveen","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>The systematic Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a priority-based consensus approach for the primary assessment of all categories of critically ill or injured patients. The aims of this review are to provide a wide overview of all relevant literature about existing ABCDE assessment tools, adherence to the ABCDE approach and related outcomes of teaching or application of the ABCDE approach by healthcare professionals.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. An a priori protocol was developed. In March 2024, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched to identify studies describing healthcare professionals applying the ABCDE approach in either simulation settings or clinical practice. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion and performed data extraction.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From n = 8165 results, fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and reported data from clinical care (n = 27) or simulation settings (n = 30). Forty-two studies reported 39 different assessment tools, containing 5 to 36 items. Adherence to the approach was reported in 43 studies and varied from 18–84% in clinical practice and from 29–35% pre-intervention to 65–97% post-intervention in simulation settings. Team leader presence and attending simulation training improved adherence. Data on patient outcomes were remarkably scarce.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Many different tools with variable content were identified to assess the ABCDE approach. Adherence was the most frequently reported outcome and varied widely among included studies. However, association between the ABCDE approach and patient outcomes is yet to be investigated.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100763"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002145/pdfft?md5=48670531960e53542ffc168b95cbed91&pid=1-s2.0-S2666520424002145-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ABCDE approach in critically ill patients: A scoping review of assessment tools, adherence and reported outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Laura J. Bruinink ,&nbsp;Marjolein Linders ,&nbsp;Willem P. de Boode ,&nbsp;Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ,&nbsp;Marije Hogeveen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>The systematic Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a priority-based consensus approach for the primary assessment of all categories of critically ill or injured patients. The aims of this review are to provide a wide overview of all relevant literature about existing ABCDE assessment tools, adherence to the ABCDE approach and related outcomes of teaching or application of the ABCDE approach by healthcare professionals.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. An a priori protocol was developed. In March 2024, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched to identify studies describing healthcare professionals applying the ABCDE approach in either simulation settings or clinical practice. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion and performed data extraction.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From n = 8165 results, fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and reported data from clinical care (n = 27) or simulation settings (n = 30). Forty-two studies reported 39 different assessment tools, containing 5 to 36 items. Adherence to the approach was reported in 43 studies and varied from 18–84% in clinical practice and from 29–35% pre-intervention to 65–97% post-intervention in simulation settings. Team leader presence and attending simulation training improved adherence. Data on patient outcomes were remarkably scarce.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Many different tools with variable content were identified to assess the ABCDE approach. Adherence was the most frequently reported outcome and varied widely among included studies. However, association between the ABCDE approach and patient outcomes is yet to be investigated.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100763\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002145/pdfft?md5=48670531960e53542ffc168b95cbed91&pid=1-s2.0-S2666520424002145-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的系统性气道、呼吸、循环、残疾和暴露(ABCDE)方法是一种基于优先顺序的共识方法,用于对各类危重病人或伤员进行初步评估。本综述旨在广泛综述所有相关文献,包括现有的 ABCDE 评估工具、ABCDE 方法的遵循情况以及医护人员教授或应用 ABCDE 方法的相关结果。方法 按照 Joanna Briggs 研究所的指南进行了全面的范围界定综述,并根据 PRISMA-ScR 检查表进行了报告。制定了先验协议。2024 年 3 月,对 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了检索,以确定描述医护人员在模拟环境或临床实践中应用 ABCDE 方法的研究。结果从 n = 8165 项结果中,有 57 项研究符合纳入标准,并报告了来自临床护理(n = 27)或模拟环境(n = 30)的数据。42项研究报告了39种不同的评估工具,包含5至36个项目。43项研究报告了对该方法的坚持情况,临床实践中的坚持率从18%-84%不等,模拟环境中的坚持率从干预前的29%-35%到干预后的65%-97%不等。团队领导的存在和参加模拟训练提高了坚持率。结论:评估 ABCDE 方法的工具多种多样,内容各不相同。依从性是最常报告的结果,在纳入的研究中差异很大。然而,ABCDE 方法与患者预后之间的关系还有待研究。
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
The ABCDE approach in critically ill patients: A scoping review of assessment tools, adherence and reported outcomes

Aim

The systematic Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a priority-based consensus approach for the primary assessment of all categories of critically ill or injured patients. The aims of this review are to provide a wide overview of all relevant literature about existing ABCDE assessment tools, adherence to the ABCDE approach and related outcomes of teaching or application of the ABCDE approach by healthcare professionals.

Methods

A comprehensive scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. An a priori protocol was developed. In March 2024, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched to identify studies describing healthcare professionals applying the ABCDE approach in either simulation settings or clinical practice. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion and performed data extraction.

Results

From n = 8165 results, fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and reported data from clinical care (n = 27) or simulation settings (n = 30). Forty-two studies reported 39 different assessment tools, containing 5 to 36 items. Adherence to the approach was reported in 43 studies and varied from 18–84% in clinical practice and from 29–35% pre-intervention to 65–97% post-intervention in simulation settings. Team leader presence and attending simulation training improved adherence. Data on patient outcomes were remarkably scarce.

Conclusion

Many different tools with variable content were identified to assess the ABCDE approach. Adherence was the most frequently reported outcome and varied widely among included studies. However, association between the ABCDE approach and patient outcomes is yet to be investigated.

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
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
期刊最新文献
Prehospital ventilation strategies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PIVOT trial) Effect of introduction of a rapid response system and increasing Medical Emergency Team (MET) activity on mortality over a 20-year period in a paediatric specialist hospital Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in obese patients: A scoping review Effect of chest compressions in addition to extracorporeal life support on carotid flow in an experimental model of refractory cardiac arrest in pigs Ventilation practices and preparedness of healthcare providers in term newborn resuscitation: A comprehensive survey study in Austrian hospitals
×
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