Louise Arntsberg, Sara Fernberg, Ann-Sofie Berger, Katarina Hedin, Anna Moberg
{"title":"肺炎的管理和记录--初级保健和急诊患者的比较。","authors":"Louise Arntsberg, Sara Fernberg, Ann-Sofie Berger, Katarina Hedin, Anna Moberg","doi":"10.1080/02813432.2024.2326469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare management and documentation of vital signs, symptoms and infection severity in pneumonia patients seeking primary care and emergency care without referral.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Medical record review of vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Primary and emergency care.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Two hundred and forty patients diagnosed with pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia. Assessments of pneumonia severity according to the reviewers, the traffic light score and CRB-65.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respiratory rate, blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation were less often documented in primary care (<i>p</i> < .001). Chest X-ray was performed in 5% of primary care patients vs. 88% of emergency care patients (<i>p</i> < .01). Primary care patients had longer symptom duration, higher oxygen saturation and lower respiratory rate. In total, the reviewers assessed 63% of all pneumonias as mild and 9% as severe. The traffic light scoring model identified 11 patients (9%) in primary care and 53 patients (44%) in emergency care at high risk of severe infection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vital signs were documented less often in primary care than in emergency care. Patients in primary care appear to have a less severe pneumonia, indicating attendance to the correct care level. The traffic light scoring model identified more patients at risk of severe infection than CRB-65, where the parameters were documented to a limited extent.</p>","PeriodicalId":21521,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"338-346"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11003321/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management and documentation of pneumonia - a comparison of patients consulting primary care and emergency care.\",\"authors\":\"Louise Arntsberg, Sara Fernberg, Ann-Sofie Berger, Katarina Hedin, Anna Moberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02813432.2024.2326469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare management and documentation of vital signs, symptoms and infection severity in pneumonia patients seeking primary care and emergency care without referral.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Medical record review of vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Primary and emergency care.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Two hundred and forty patients diagnosed with pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia. Assessments of pneumonia severity according to the reviewers, the traffic light score and CRB-65.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respiratory rate, blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation were less often documented in primary care (<i>p</i> < .001). Chest X-ray was performed in 5% of primary care patients vs. 88% of emergency care patients (<i>p</i> < .01). Primary care patients had longer symptom duration, higher oxygen saturation and lower respiratory rate. In total, the reviewers assessed 63% of all pneumonias as mild and 9% as severe. The traffic light scoring model identified 11 patients (9%) in primary care and 53 patients (44%) in emergency care at high risk of severe infection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vital signs were documented less often in primary care than in emergency care. Patients in primary care appear to have a less severe pneumonia, indicating attendance to the correct care level. The traffic light scoring model identified more patients at risk of severe infection than CRB-65, where the parameters were documented to a limited extent.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"338-346\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11003321/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2024.2326469\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2024.2326469","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要比较初级医疗机构和急诊机构对未经转诊的肺炎患者的生命体征、症状和感染严重程度的管理和记录:设计:对生命体征、检查结果和肺炎严重程度进行病历回顾:研究对象: 240 名确诊为肺炎的患者:主要结果测量指标:生命体征、检查结果和肺炎严重程度:生命体征、检查结果和肺炎严重程度。主要结果指标:生命体征、检查结果和肺炎严重程度,根据评审员、交通灯评分和 CRB-65 评估肺炎严重程度:结果:基层医疗机构较少记录呼吸频率、血压、心率和血氧饱和度(p p 结论:基层医疗机构较少记录生命体征:基层医疗机构记录生命体征的频率低于急诊医疗机构。基层医疗机构患者的肺炎程度似乎较轻,这表明患者得到了正确的护理。与CRB-65相比,交通灯评分模型能识别出更多有严重感染风险的患者,而CRB-65对参数的记录有限。
Management and documentation of pneumonia - a comparison of patients consulting primary care and emergency care.
Objective: To compare management and documentation of vital signs, symptoms and infection severity in pneumonia patients seeking primary care and emergency care without referral.
Design: Medical record review of vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia.
Setting: Primary and emergency care.
Subjects: Two hundred and forty patients diagnosed with pneumonia.
Main outcome measures: Vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia. Assessments of pneumonia severity according to the reviewers, the traffic light score and CRB-65.
Results: Respiratory rate, blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation were less often documented in primary care (p < .001). Chest X-ray was performed in 5% of primary care patients vs. 88% of emergency care patients (p < .01). Primary care patients had longer symptom duration, higher oxygen saturation and lower respiratory rate. In total, the reviewers assessed 63% of all pneumonias as mild and 9% as severe. The traffic light scoring model identified 11 patients (9%) in primary care and 53 patients (44%) in emergency care at high risk of severe infection.
Conclusions: Vital signs were documented less often in primary care than in emergency care. Patients in primary care appear to have a less severe pneumonia, indicating attendance to the correct care level. The traffic light scoring model identified more patients at risk of severe infection than CRB-65, where the parameters were documented to a limited extent.
期刊介绍:
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care is an international online open access journal publishing articles with relevance to general practice and primary health care. Focusing on the continuous professional development in family medicine the journal addresses clinical, epidemiological and humanistic topics in relation to the daily clinical practice.
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care is owned by the members of the National Colleges of General Practice in the five Nordic countries through the Nordic Federation of General Practice (NFGP). The journal includes original research on topics related to general practice and family medicine, and publishes both quantitative and qualitative original research, editorials, discussion and analysis papers and reviews to facilitate continuing professional development in family medicine. The journal''s topics range broadly and include:
• Clinical family medicine
• Epidemiological research
• Qualitative research
• Health services research.