急性脑卒中患者医院预警的患病率和预测因素:一项混合方法研究

J. Sheppard, A. Lindenmeyer, R. Mellor, S. Greenfield, J. Mant, T. Quinn, A. Rosser, D. Sandler, D. Sims, M. Ward, R. McManus
{"title":"急性脑卒中患者医院预警的患病率和预测因素:一项混合方法研究","authors":"J. Sheppard, A. Lindenmeyer, R. Mellor, S. Greenfield, J. Mant, T. Quinn, A. Rosser, D. Sandler, D. Sims, M. Ward, R. McManus","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2014-204392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Thrombolysis can significantly reduce the burden of stroke but the time window for safe and effective treatment is short. In patients travelling to hospital via ambulance, the sending of a ‘prealert’ message can significantly improve the timeliness of treatment. Objective Examine the prevalence of hospital prealerting, the extent to which prealert protocols are followed and what factors influence emergency medical services (EMS) staff's decision to send a prealert. Methods Cohort study of patients admitted to two acute stroke units in West Midlands (UK) hospitals using linked data from hospital and EMS records. A logistic regression model examined the association between prealert eligibility and whether a prealert message was sent. In semistructured interviews, EMS staff were asked about their experiences of patients with suspected stroke. Results Of the 539 patients eligible for this study, 271 (51%) were recruited. Of these, only 79 (29%) were eligible for prealerting according to criteria set out in local protocols but 143 (53%) were prealerted. Increasing number of Face, Arm, Speech Test symptoms (1 symptom, OR 6.14, 95% CI 2.06 to 18.30, p=0.001; 2 symptoms, OR 31.36, 95% CI 9.91 to 99.24, p<0.001; 3 symptoms, OR 75.84, 95% CI 24.68 to 233.03, p<0.001) and EMS contact within 5 h of symptom onset (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.50 p=0.006) were key predictors of prealerting but eligibility for prealert as a whole was not (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 4.34 p=0.12). In qualitative interviews, EMS staff displayed varying understanding of prealert protocols and described frustration when their interpretation of the prealert criteria was not shared by ED staff. Conclusions Up to half of the patients presenting with suspected stroke in this study were prealerted by EMS staff, regardless of eligibility, resulting in disagreements with ED staff during handover. Aligning the expectations of EMS and ED staff, perhaps through simplified prealert protocols, could be considered to facilitate more appropriate use of hospital prealerting in acute stroke.","PeriodicalId":410922,"journal":{"name":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence and predictors of hospital prealerting in acute stroke: a mixed methods study\",\"authors\":\"J. Sheppard, A. Lindenmeyer, R. Mellor, S. Greenfield, J. Mant, T. Quinn, A. Rosser, D. Sandler, D. Sims, M. Ward, R. McManus\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2014-204392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Thrombolysis can significantly reduce the burden of stroke but the time window for safe and effective treatment is short. In patients travelling to hospital via ambulance, the sending of a ‘prealert’ message can significantly improve the timeliness of treatment. Objective Examine the prevalence of hospital prealerting, the extent to which prealert protocols are followed and what factors influence emergency medical services (EMS) staff's decision to send a prealert. Methods Cohort study of patients admitted to two acute stroke units in West Midlands (UK) hospitals using linked data from hospital and EMS records. A logistic regression model examined the association between prealert eligibility and whether a prealert message was sent. In semistructured interviews, EMS staff were asked about their experiences of patients with suspected stroke. Results Of the 539 patients eligible for this study, 271 (51%) were recruited. Of these, only 79 (29%) were eligible for prealerting according to criteria set out in local protocols but 143 (53%) were prealerted. Increasing number of Face, Arm, Speech Test symptoms (1 symptom, OR 6.14, 95% CI 2.06 to 18.30, p=0.001; 2 symptoms, OR 31.36, 95% CI 9.91 to 99.24, p<0.001; 3 symptoms, OR 75.84, 95% CI 24.68 to 233.03, p<0.001) and EMS contact within 5 h of symptom onset (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.50 p=0.006) were key predictors of prealerting but eligibility for prealert as a whole was not (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 4.34 p=0.12). In qualitative interviews, EMS staff displayed varying understanding of prealert protocols and described frustration when their interpretation of the prealert criteria was not shared by ED staff. Conclusions Up to half of the patients presenting with suspected stroke in this study were prealerted by EMS staff, regardless of eligibility, resulting in disagreements with ED staff during handover. Aligning the expectations of EMS and ED staff, perhaps through simplified prealert protocols, could be considered to facilitate more appropriate use of hospital prealerting in acute stroke.\",\"PeriodicalId\":410922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2014-204392\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2014-204392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:溶栓可以显著减轻脑卒中的负担,但安全有效治疗的时间窗很短。在乘坐救护车前往医院的患者中,发送“预警”信息可以显著提高治疗的及时性。目的了解医院预警的流行程度、预警方案的执行程度以及影响应急医疗服务(EMS)人员发出预警决策的因素。方法对西米德兰兹郡(英国)两家医院急性卒中住院患者进行队列研究,使用医院和EMS记录的相关数据。逻辑回归模型检验了预警资格与预警信息是否被发送之间的关系。在半结构化访谈中,EMS工作人员被问及他们对疑似中风患者的经历。在539例符合研究条件的患者中,271例(51%)被招募。其中,根据当地协议规定的标准,只有79例(29%)符合预警条件,但143例(53%)得到了预警。面部、手臂、言语测试症状增多(1种症状,OR 6.14, 95% CI 2.06 ~ 18.30, p=0.001;2种症状,OR 31.36, 95% CI 9.91 ~ 99.24, p<0.001;3种症状(OR 75.84, 95% CI 24.68 ~ 233.03, p<0.001)和症状出现后5小时内与EMS接触(OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.37 ~ 6.50 p=0.006)是预警的关键预测因子,但总体上不具备预警资格(OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.85 ~ 4.34 p=0.12)。在定性访谈中,EMS工作人员对预警协议的理解各不相同,并描述了当他们对预警标准的解释与急诊科工作人员不一致时的沮丧。在本研究中,多达一半的疑似卒中患者被EMS工作人员提前告知,无论是否符合资格,导致在交接过程中与ED工作人员产生分歧。通过简化预警方案,可以考虑调整EMS和ED工作人员的期望,以促进在急性卒中中更适当地使用医院预警。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prevalence and predictors of hospital prealerting in acute stroke: a mixed methods study
Background Thrombolysis can significantly reduce the burden of stroke but the time window for safe and effective treatment is short. In patients travelling to hospital via ambulance, the sending of a ‘prealert’ message can significantly improve the timeliness of treatment. Objective Examine the prevalence of hospital prealerting, the extent to which prealert protocols are followed and what factors influence emergency medical services (EMS) staff's decision to send a prealert. Methods Cohort study of patients admitted to two acute stroke units in West Midlands (UK) hospitals using linked data from hospital and EMS records. A logistic regression model examined the association between prealert eligibility and whether a prealert message was sent. In semistructured interviews, EMS staff were asked about their experiences of patients with suspected stroke. Results Of the 539 patients eligible for this study, 271 (51%) were recruited. Of these, only 79 (29%) were eligible for prealerting according to criteria set out in local protocols but 143 (53%) were prealerted. Increasing number of Face, Arm, Speech Test symptoms (1 symptom, OR 6.14, 95% CI 2.06 to 18.30, p=0.001; 2 symptoms, OR 31.36, 95% CI 9.91 to 99.24, p<0.001; 3 symptoms, OR 75.84, 95% CI 24.68 to 233.03, p<0.001) and EMS contact within 5 h of symptom onset (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.50 p=0.006) were key predictors of prealerting but eligibility for prealert as a whole was not (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 4.34 p=0.12). In qualitative interviews, EMS staff displayed varying understanding of prealert protocols and described frustration when their interpretation of the prealert criteria was not shared by ED staff. Conclusions Up to half of the patients presenting with suspected stroke in this study were prealerted by EMS staff, regardless of eligibility, resulting in disagreements with ED staff during handover. Aligning the expectations of EMS and ED staff, perhaps through simplified prealert protocols, could be considered to facilitate more appropriate use of hospital prealerting in acute stroke.
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
×
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