Prehospital Variability of Pediatric Emergency Acuity Assessment Criteria in Japan: A Nationwide Analysis of Fire Department Protocols

IF 1.4 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sakura Minami, Chiaki Toida, Naoki Yogo, Noriyuki Kaku, Takeru Abe, Takashi Moriya
{"title":"Prehospital Variability of Pediatric Emergency Acuity Assessment Criteria in Japan: A Nationwide Analysis of Fire Department Protocols","authors":"Sakura Minami,&nbsp;Chiaki Toida,&nbsp;Naoki Yogo,&nbsp;Noriyuki Kaku,&nbsp;Takeru Abe,&nbsp;Takashi Moriya","doi":"10.1002/ams2.70124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>In pediatric emergency care, acuity assessment is required based on age-specific physiological characteristics. However, in Japan, prehospital pediatric acuity d protocols vary regionally in the assessment tools and vital sign criteria used. This study aimed to clarify the differences in assessment tools and vital sign criteria currently used for pediatric acuity determination in Japan.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study used data from a nationwide survey conducted in August 2024 by the Pediatric Emergency Committee, Japanese Society for Emergency Medicine, which targeted emergency medical services supervisors at all 720 fire departments across Japan regarding the presence and content of pediatric acuity determination protocols. Collected protocols were compared and analyzed for differences in assessment tools, vital sign thresholds, and age categorizations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Responses were obtained from 561 departments (77.9%). After consolidation of duplicate prefecture-level protocols, 32 unique pediatric acuity determination protocols were included in the final analysis. Only one protocol fully adhered to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) framework, whereas most protocols were based on the Foundation for Ambulance Service Development (FASD) criteria. The upper and lower limits of vital signs varied, with apparent differences in younger age groups. Age categorizations ranged from three broad divisions to detailed subdivisions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Japan's prehospital pediatric acuity determination shows substantial regional variability, reflected in the identification of multiple distinct protocols and limited real-world adherence to FDMA-based criteria. Nationwide standardization and implementation of FDMA-based criteria should be prioritized before developing new systems, followed by validation in real-world practice to ensure feasibility, equity, and clinical effectiveness.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7196,"journal":{"name":"Acute Medicine & Surgery","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12929648/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute Medicine & Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ams2.70124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

In pediatric emergency care, acuity assessment is required based on age-specific physiological characteristics. However, in Japan, prehospital pediatric acuity d protocols vary regionally in the assessment tools and vital sign criteria used. This study aimed to clarify the differences in assessment tools and vital sign criteria currently used for pediatric acuity determination in Japan.

Methods

This study used data from a nationwide survey conducted in August 2024 by the Pediatric Emergency Committee, Japanese Society for Emergency Medicine, which targeted emergency medical services supervisors at all 720 fire departments across Japan regarding the presence and content of pediatric acuity determination protocols. Collected protocols were compared and analyzed for differences in assessment tools, vital sign thresholds, and age categorizations.

Results

Responses were obtained from 561 departments (77.9%). After consolidation of duplicate prefecture-level protocols, 32 unique pediatric acuity determination protocols were included in the final analysis. Only one protocol fully adhered to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) framework, whereas most protocols were based on the Foundation for Ambulance Service Development (FASD) criteria. The upper and lower limits of vital signs varied, with apparent differences in younger age groups. Age categorizations ranged from three broad divisions to detailed subdivisions.

Conclusion

Japan's prehospital pediatric acuity determination shows substantial regional variability, reflected in the identification of multiple distinct protocols and limited real-world adherence to FDMA-based criteria. Nationwide standardization and implementation of FDMA-based criteria should be prioritized before developing new systems, followed by validation in real-world practice to ensure feasibility, equity, and clinical effectiveness.

Abstract Image

日本儿科急诊视力评估标准院前变异性:全国消防部门协议分析。
简介:在儿科急诊护理中,需要根据年龄特定的生理特征进行视力评估。然而,在日本,院前儿科敏锐度协议在使用的评估工具和生命体征标准方面因地区而异。本研究旨在澄清日本目前用于儿科锐度测定的评估工具和生命体征标准的差异。方法:本研究使用了日本急诊医学学会儿科急诊委员会于2024年8月进行的一项全国性调查的数据,该调查针对日本所有720个消防部门的急诊医疗服务主管,调查了儿童敏锐度测定方案的存在和内容。收集的方案比较和分析评估工具、生命体征阈值和年龄分类的差异。结果:共获得561个科室的反馈,占77.9%。在合并重复的地级方案后,最终分析了32个独特的儿科锐度计测定方案。只有一个协议完全遵守消防和灾害管理局(FDMA)框架,而大多数协议都是基于救护车服务发展基金会(FASD)标准。生命体征的上下限各不相同,在低龄组差异明显。年龄分类范围从三个大的分类到详细的细分。结论:日本的院前儿科锐度测定显示出很大的地区差异,这反映在多种不同方案的识别和基于fdma标准的有限现实依从性上。在开发新系统之前,应优先考虑全国范围内基于fdma标准的标准化和实施,然后在实际实践中进行验证,以确保可行性、公平性和临床有效性。
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
Acute Medicine & Surgery
Acute Medicine & Surgery MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
87
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书