Does PIC score pick correctly? Evaluation of a modified-PIC based admission a single institution retrospective cohort study.

Courtney H Meyer, Mari Freedberg, Janelle Tanghal, Christine Castater, Crystal T Nguyen, Randi N Smith, Jason D Sciarretta, Jonathan Nguyen
{"title":"Does PIC score pick correctly? Evaluation of a modified-PIC based admission a single institution retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Courtney H Meyer, Mari Freedberg, Janelle Tanghal, Christine Castater, Crystal T Nguyen, Randi N Smith, Jason D Sciarretta, Jonathan Nguyen","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Pain, Inspiratory effort, Cough score (PIC) has been developed and widely adopted to guide clinical prognostication for patients with chest wall injury. To date, the efficacy, accuracy, and safety of a PIC based triage system has not been validated. Therefore, this study sought to evaluate the use of a modified-PIC score to triage and down-grade trauma patients with chest wall injury at a single institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted at a large, Level I Trauma Center on patients with chest wall injuries admitted between 1/1/2018-10/31/20,222. On 12/1/2020, our institution implemented a modified-PIC triage tool including the PIC score, age, and severity of chest wall injury. The Pre-PIC (1/1/2018-11/20/2020) and Post-PIC (1/1/2021-10/31/2022) groups were composed based on admission date and outcomes between the two were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2,627 patients comprised the Pre-PIC group and 2,212 patients comprised Post-PIC. The groups didn't differ significantly in demographics or mechanisms of injury except for COVID status. Post-intervention, a greater proportion of patients were triaged to the intermediate care unit instead of the ICU or floor. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (LOS), ventilator days, unplanned ICU admission, or mortality in Pre-PIC vs Post-PIC. ICU LOS, rates of ARDS, and cardiac arrest with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were significantly lower in Post-PIC. Multivariable models demonstrated significantly lower ARDS rates and ICU free days. ICU LOS trended towards significance as well.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the largest study, to date, evaluating the impact of a modified-PIC triage system on clinical outcomes. The results suggest a modified-PIC triage system may lead to decreased ICU days, ARDS rates, and rates of cardiac arrest w/ ROSC, potentially improving hospital resource allocation. Further prospective and multi-center studies are needed to validate our understanding on the impact of a chest wall scoring system on triage and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94042,"journal":{"name":"Injury","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2024.111860","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The Pain, Inspiratory effort, Cough score (PIC) has been developed and widely adopted to guide clinical prognostication for patients with chest wall injury. To date, the efficacy, accuracy, and safety of a PIC based triage system has not been validated. Therefore, this study sought to evaluate the use of a modified-PIC score to triage and down-grade trauma patients with chest wall injury at a single institution.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at a large, Level I Trauma Center on patients with chest wall injuries admitted between 1/1/2018-10/31/20,222. On 12/1/2020, our institution implemented a modified-PIC triage tool including the PIC score, age, and severity of chest wall injury. The Pre-PIC (1/1/2018-11/20/2020) and Post-PIC (1/1/2021-10/31/2022) groups were composed based on admission date and outcomes between the two were compared.

Results: 2,627 patients comprised the Pre-PIC group and 2,212 patients comprised Post-PIC. The groups didn't differ significantly in demographics or mechanisms of injury except for COVID status. Post-intervention, a greater proportion of patients were triaged to the intermediate care unit instead of the ICU or floor. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (LOS), ventilator days, unplanned ICU admission, or mortality in Pre-PIC vs Post-PIC. ICU LOS, rates of ARDS, and cardiac arrest with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were significantly lower in Post-PIC. Multivariable models demonstrated significantly lower ARDS rates and ICU free days. ICU LOS trended towards significance as well.

Conclusions: This is the largest study, to date, evaluating the impact of a modified-PIC triage system on clinical outcomes. The results suggest a modified-PIC triage system may lead to decreased ICU days, ARDS rates, and rates of cardiac arrest w/ ROSC, potentially improving hospital resource allocation. Further prospective and multi-center studies are needed to validate our understanding on the impact of a chest wall scoring system on triage and outcomes.

PIC 评分是否正确?对基于单一机构回顾性队列研究的改良 PIC 的评估。
简介疼痛、吸气费力、咳嗽评分(PIC)已被开发并广泛用于指导胸壁损伤患者的临床预后。迄今为止,基于 PIC 的分诊系统的有效性、准确性和安全性尚未得到验证。因此,本研究试图评估一家医疗机构使用改良 PIC 评分对胸壁损伤的创伤患者进行分诊和降级的情况:一项回顾性研究在一家大型一级创伤中心进行,研究对象为 2018 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 1 月 31 日期间收治的胸壁损伤患者。我院于 2020 年 12 月 1 日实施了修改后的 PIC 分诊工具,其中包括 PIC 评分、年龄和胸壁损伤的严重程度。根据入院日期分为PIC前(1/1/2018-11/20/2020)组和PIC后(1/1/2021-10/31/2022)组,并对两组的结果进行比较。除 COVID 状态外,两组在人口统计学和损伤机制方面没有明显差异。干预后,更大比例的患者被分流到中级护理病房,而不是重症监护室或楼层。干预前与干预后的患者在住院时间(LOS)、呼吸机使用天数、非计划入住重症监护病房或死亡率方面没有明显差异。重症监护室的住院时间、ARDS 发生率和心跳骤停但恢复自主循环 (ROSC) 的发生率在 PIC 后明显降低。多变量模型显示,ARDS 发生率和无 ICU 天数明显降低。ICU LOS 也有显著降低的趋势:这是迄今为止评估改良 PIC 分流系统对临床结果影响的最大规模研究。研究结果表明,修改后的 PIC 分诊系统可减少 ICU 天数、ARDS 发生率和心脏骤停/复苏率,从而改善医院的资源分配。需要进一步开展前瞻性多中心研究,以验证我们对胸壁评分系统对分诊和预后影响的理解。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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