Mapping Glasgow Coma scale to AVPU scores among adults in the prehospital setting

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sriram Ramgopal , Rebecca E. Cash , Masashi Okubo , Christian Martin-Gill
{"title":"Mapping Glasgow Coma scale to AVPU scores among adults in the prehospital setting","authors":"Sriram Ramgopal ,&nbsp;Rebecca E. Cash ,&nbsp;Masashi Okubo ,&nbsp;Christian Martin-Gill","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To develop a translation between the Glasgow Come Scale and the Alert-Verbal-Pain-Unresponsive (AVPU) scale among adults with out-of-hospital emergencies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a retrospective analysis of adults (≥18 years) from the 2022 National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Information System with a ground scene encounter with a concurrently documented GCS and AVPU assessment. Using a training partition of 2.5 million encounters, we performed a grid search to identify all combinations of mutually exclusive cutpoints which divided the GCS into four segments. We identified the combination with the highest Kappa statistic and reported metrics of performance in this sample in the <em>test partition.</em></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 16,321,299 encounters with a concurrent AVPU and GCS. Using the AVPU scale, 93.3 % were classified as Alert; 2.9 % as Verbal; 1.5 % as Pain; and 2.3 % as Unresponsive. Using a grid-based search, optimal cutpoints were identified when using a GCS of 14–15 for Alert, 10–13 for Verbal, 7–9 for Pain, and 3–6 for Unresponsive. Cohen's Kappa was 0.63 in the test partition, indicating substantial agreement. Intraclass F1 score varied across different alertness levels and were 0.97 for “Alert”, 0.43 for “Verbal”, 0.49 for “Pain”, and 0.83 for “Unresponsive”. Findings were similar in analyses performed by age group and by the presence or absence of trauma.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We report an optimal crosswalk between the AVPU and GCS scales. Performance in the Verbal and Pain categories was lower than the Alert and Unresponsive categories. These findings may facilitate clinician handovers between EMS and non-EMS clinicians.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675724004820","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To develop a translation between the Glasgow Come Scale and the Alert-Verbal-Pain-Unresponsive (AVPU) scale among adults with out-of-hospital emergencies.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of adults (≥18 years) from the 2022 National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Information System with a ground scene encounter with a concurrently documented GCS and AVPU assessment. Using a training partition of 2.5 million encounters, we performed a grid search to identify all combinations of mutually exclusive cutpoints which divided the GCS into four segments. We identified the combination with the highest Kappa statistic and reported metrics of performance in this sample in the test partition.

Results

We identified 16,321,299 encounters with a concurrent AVPU and GCS. Using the AVPU scale, 93.3 % were classified as Alert; 2.9 % as Verbal; 1.5 % as Pain; and 2.3 % as Unresponsive. Using a grid-based search, optimal cutpoints were identified when using a GCS of 14–15 for Alert, 10–13 for Verbal, 7–9 for Pain, and 3–6 for Unresponsive. Cohen's Kappa was 0.63 in the test partition, indicating substantial agreement. Intraclass F1 score varied across different alertness levels and were 0.97 for “Alert”, 0.43 for “Verbal”, 0.49 for “Pain”, and 0.83 for “Unresponsive”. Findings were similar in analyses performed by age group and by the presence or absence of trauma.

Conclusion

We report an optimal crosswalk between the AVPU and GCS scales. Performance in the Verbal and Pain categories was lower than the Alert and Unresponsive categories. These findings may facilitate clinician handovers between EMS and non-EMS clinicians.

院前环境中成人格拉斯哥昏迷量表与 AVPU 评分的映射关系
方法 我们对 2022 年国家紧急医疗服务 (EMS) 信息系统中的成人(≥18 岁)进行了回顾性分析,分析对象为在地面现场遇到并同时记录了 GCS 和 AVPU 评估的人员。我们使用包含 250 万次遭遇的训练分区进行网格搜索,以确定将 GCS 分成四个部分的互斥切点的所有组合。我们确定了 Kappa 统计量最高的组合,并在测试分区中报告了该样本的性能指标。结果我们确定了 16,321,299 例同时具有 AVPU 和 GCS 的病例。使用 AVPU 量表,93.3% 被归类为 "警觉";2.9% 被归类为 "言语";1.5% 被归类为 "疼痛";2.3% 被归类为 "无反应"。通过网格搜索,确定了最佳切点,即 GCS 为 14-15 时为 "警觉",10-13 时为 "言语",7-9 时为 "疼痛",3-6 时为 "反应迟钝"。在测试分区中,科恩卡帕(Cohen's Kappa)值为 0.63,表明结果非常一致。不同警觉水平的类内 F1 分数各不相同,"警觉 "为 0.97,"言语 "为 0.43,"疼痛 "为 0.49,"反应迟钝 "为 0.83。按年龄组和有无外伤进行的分析结果相似。言语和疼痛类别的表现低于 "警觉 "和 "反应迟钝 "类别。这些发现可能有助于急救医疗人员和非急救医疗人员之间的临床医生交接工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信