“一个主题的无尽变化”:国际和英国主要创伤分类工具的文件分析。

Gordon Fuller, Chris Holt, Samuel Keating, Janette Turner
{"title":"“一个主题的无尽变化”:国际和英国主要创伤分类工具的文件分析。","authors":"Gordon Fuller, Chris Holt, Samuel Keating, Janette Turner","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2024.12.9.3.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Triage tools are used within trauma networks to identify which injured patients should be bypassed and pre-alerted to major trauma centres. Despite the importance of treating the 'right patient in the right place at the right time', there has been no consensus on triage tool structure or content. This study aimed to identify, collate, review, summarise and recognise patterns across established major trauma triage tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>UK and international triage tools used between 2012 and 2021 were identified through literature review and correspondence with trauma networks. A conceptual content analysis was then undertaken using an inductive codebook, comprising concepts of triage tool structure, intended population, inclusion criteria and included variables and thresholds. Thematic analysis was also performed to identify higher-level patterns within the data, with emerging patterns becoming categories for analysis. A narrative synthesis of findings was then undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 53 major trauma tools were identified, comprising 19 UK tools and 35 published international tools. Most triage tools (n = 42/53, 80%) were developed by expert opinion, were paper based and shared a common structure of multiple domains, with constituent triage predictors assessed in parallel. A minority of tools were statistically derived prediction models, operationalised either as simple scores (n = 10, 19%) or as an electronic application (n = 1, 1%). Overall, 173 distinct triage variables were used, with the median number of constituent triage variables per triage tool being 19 (range 3-31). Four distinct patterns of triage tools were identified during thematic analysis, which differed in terms of format, number of triage variables, thresholds, scope for clinical judgement and relative diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many diverse major trauma triage tools were identified, with no consensus in format, structure or content. Quantification of constituent variables and identification of distinct categories of triage tools may guide the design of future triage tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"9 3","pages":"28-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11610539/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Endless variation on a theme': a document analysis of international and UK major trauma triage tools.\",\"authors\":\"Gordon Fuller, Chris Holt, Samuel Keating, Janette Turner\",\"doi\":\"10.29045/14784726.2024.12.9.3.28\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Triage tools are used within trauma networks to identify which injured patients should be bypassed and pre-alerted to major trauma centres. Despite the importance of treating the 'right patient in the right place at the right time', there has been no consensus on triage tool structure or content. This study aimed to identify, collate, review, summarise and recognise patterns across established major trauma triage tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>UK and international triage tools used between 2012 and 2021 were identified through literature review and correspondence with trauma networks. A conceptual content analysis was then undertaken using an inductive codebook, comprising concepts of triage tool structure, intended population, inclusion criteria and included variables and thresholds. Thematic analysis was also performed to identify higher-level patterns within the data, with emerging patterns becoming categories for analysis. A narrative synthesis of findings was then undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 53 major trauma tools were identified, comprising 19 UK tools and 35 published international tools. Most triage tools (n = 42/53, 80%) were developed by expert opinion, were paper based and shared a common structure of multiple domains, with constituent triage predictors assessed in parallel. A minority of tools were statistically derived prediction models, operationalised either as simple scores (n = 10, 19%) or as an electronic application (n = 1, 1%). Overall, 173 distinct triage variables were used, with the median number of constituent triage variables per triage tool being 19 (range 3-31). Four distinct patterns of triage tools were identified during thematic analysis, which differed in terms of format, number of triage variables, thresholds, scope for clinical judgement and relative diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many diverse major trauma triage tools were identified, with no consensus in format, structure or content. Quantification of constituent variables and identification of distinct categories of triage tools may guide the design of future triage tools.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British paramedic journal\",\"volume\":\"9 3\",\"pages\":\"28-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11610539/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British paramedic journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2024.12.9.3.28\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2024.12.9.3.28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:在创伤网络中使用分诊工具来确定哪些受伤患者应该被绕过并预先通知到主要的创伤中心。尽管“在正确的时间在正确的地点治疗正确的病人”很重要,但在分诊工具的结构或内容上还没有达成共识。本研究旨在识别、整理、回顾、总结和识别已建立的主要创伤分诊工具的模式。方法:通过文献回顾和与创伤网络的通信,确定2012年至2021年间使用的英国和国际分诊工具。然后使用归纳代码本进行概念性内容分析,包括分类工具结构、预期人口、纳入标准以及纳入变量和阈值的概念。还进行了专题分析,以确定数据中的高级模式,新出现的模式成为分析的类别。然后对调查结果进行叙述综合。结果:总共确定了53个主要创伤工具,包括19个英国工具和35个已发表的国际工具。大多数分诊工具(n = 42/ 53,80%)是由专家意见开发的,以论文为基础,共享多领域的共同结构,并并行评估成分分诊预测因子。少数工具是统计推导的预测模型,以简单分数(n = 10,19%)或电子应用程序(n = 1,1%)进行操作。总体而言,使用了173个不同的分类变量,每个分类工具的组成分类变量的中位数为19(范围3-31)。在专题分析中确定了四种不同的分诊工具模式,它们在格式、分诊变量数量、阈值、临床判断范围和相对诊断准确性方面存在差异。结论:发现了许多不同的重大创伤分诊工具,在格式、结构或内容上没有共识。量化组成变量和识别分类工具的不同类别可以指导未来分类工具的设计。
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
'Endless variation on a theme': a document analysis of international and UK major trauma triage tools.

Introduction: Triage tools are used within trauma networks to identify which injured patients should be bypassed and pre-alerted to major trauma centres. Despite the importance of treating the 'right patient in the right place at the right time', there has been no consensus on triage tool structure or content. This study aimed to identify, collate, review, summarise and recognise patterns across established major trauma triage tools.

Methods: UK and international triage tools used between 2012 and 2021 were identified through literature review and correspondence with trauma networks. A conceptual content analysis was then undertaken using an inductive codebook, comprising concepts of triage tool structure, intended population, inclusion criteria and included variables and thresholds. Thematic analysis was also performed to identify higher-level patterns within the data, with emerging patterns becoming categories for analysis. A narrative synthesis of findings was then undertaken.

Results: In total, 53 major trauma tools were identified, comprising 19 UK tools and 35 published international tools. Most triage tools (n = 42/53, 80%) were developed by expert opinion, were paper based and shared a common structure of multiple domains, with constituent triage predictors assessed in parallel. A minority of tools were statistically derived prediction models, operationalised either as simple scores (n = 10, 19%) or as an electronic application (n = 1, 1%). Overall, 173 distinct triage variables were used, with the median number of constituent triage variables per triage tool being 19 (range 3-31). Four distinct patterns of triage tools were identified during thematic analysis, which differed in terms of format, number of triage variables, thresholds, scope for clinical judgement and relative diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion: Many diverse major trauma triage tools were identified, with no consensus in format, structure or content. Quantification of constituent variables and identification of distinct categories of triage tools may guide the design of future triage tools.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A national perspective of ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with a head injury: a mixed-methods study. A qualitative exploration of the views of paramedics regarding the use of dark humour. Chemsex: core knowledge for emergency medical service responders. Comparing telesimulation-based learning and e-learning as remote education delivery methods in pre-hospital practice. 'Endless variation on a theme': a document analysis of international and UK major trauma triage tools.
×
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