Wourod Mahmoud Omar, Imad Rasheed Abu Khader, Salam Bani Hani, Mohammed ALBashtawy
{"title":"用格拉斯哥昏迷量表和反应迟钝全纲评分预测约旦河西岸重症监护病房神经系统疾病患者的预后:一项前瞻性横断面研究。","authors":"Wourod Mahmoud Omar, Imad Rasheed Abu Khader, Salam Bani Hani, Mohammed ALBashtawy","doi":"10.4266/acc.2024.00570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining the clinical neurological state of the patient is essential for making decisions and forecasting results. The Glasgow Coma Scale and the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Scale are commonly used tools for measuring behavioral consciousness. This study aims to compare scales among patients with neurological disorders in intensive care units (ICUs) in the West Bank.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cross-sectional design was employed. All patients admitted to ICUs who met inclusion criteria were involved in this study. Data were collected from from An-Najah National University, Al-Watani, and Rafedia Hospital. Both tools were used to collect data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 84 patients were assessed, 69.0% of the patients were male, and the average length of stay was 6.4 days. The mean score on the Glasgow Coma scale was 11.2 on admission 11.6 after 48 hours, and 12.2 on discharge. The mean FOUR Scale score was 12.2 on admission, 12.4 after 48 hours, and 12.5 at discharge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study indicates that both the Glasgow Coma Scale and the FOUR scale are effective in predicting outcomes for neurologically deteriorated critically ill patients. However, the FOUR scale proved to be more reliable when assessing outcomes in ICU patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":44118,"journal":{"name":"Acute and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392694/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score evaluation to predict patient outcomes with neurological illnesses in intensive care units in West Bank: a prospective cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Wourod Mahmoud Omar, Imad Rasheed Abu Khader, Salam Bani Hani, Mohammed ALBashtawy\",\"doi\":\"10.4266/acc.2024.00570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining the clinical neurological state of the patient is essential for making decisions and forecasting results. The Glasgow Coma Scale and the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Scale are commonly used tools for measuring behavioral consciousness. This study aims to compare scales among patients with neurological disorders in intensive care units (ICUs) in the West Bank.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cross-sectional design was employed. All patients admitted to ICUs who met inclusion criteria were involved in this study. Data were collected from from An-Najah National University, Al-Watani, and Rafedia Hospital. Both tools were used to collect data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 84 patients were assessed, 69.0% of the patients were male, and the average length of stay was 6.4 days. The mean score on the Glasgow Coma scale was 11.2 on admission 11.6 after 48 hours, and 12.2 on discharge. The mean FOUR Scale score was 12.2 on admission, 12.4 after 48 hours, and 12.5 at discharge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study indicates that both the Glasgow Coma Scale and the FOUR scale are effective in predicting outcomes for neurologically deteriorated critically ill patients. However, the FOUR scale proved to be more reliable when assessing outcomes in ICU patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acute and Critical Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392694/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acute and Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2024.00570\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2024.00570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:确定患者的临床神经状态对于做出决策和预测结果至关重要。格拉斯哥昏迷量表(Glasgow Coma Scale)和反应迟钝量表(FOUR)是测量行为意识的常用工具。本研究旨在比较约旦河西岸重症监护病房(ICU)中神经系统疾病患者的量表:方法:采用前瞻性横断面设计。符合纳入标准的重症监护室住院患者均参与了本研究。数据来自安纳贾国立大学、Al-Watani 和 Rafedia 医院。两种工具均用于收集数据:共有 84 名患者接受了评估,69.0% 的患者为男性,平均住院时间为 6.4 天。入院时格拉斯哥昏迷量表的平均评分为 11.2 分,48 小时后为 11.6 分,出院时为 12.2 分。入院时 FOUR 量表的平均得分为 12.2 分,48 小时后为 12.4 分,出院时为 12.5 分:本研究表明,格拉斯哥昏迷量表和 FOUR 量表都能有效预测神经功能恶化的重症患者的预后。然而,事实证明,FOUR量表在评估重症监护室患者的预后时更为可靠。
The Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score evaluation to predict patient outcomes with neurological illnesses in intensive care units in West Bank: a prospective cross-sectional study.
Background: Determining the clinical neurological state of the patient is essential for making decisions and forecasting results. The Glasgow Coma Scale and the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) Scale are commonly used tools for measuring behavioral consciousness. This study aims to compare scales among patients with neurological disorders in intensive care units (ICUs) in the West Bank.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional design was employed. All patients admitted to ICUs who met inclusion criteria were involved in this study. Data were collected from from An-Najah National University, Al-Watani, and Rafedia Hospital. Both tools were used to collect data.
Results: A total of 84 patients were assessed, 69.0% of the patients were male, and the average length of stay was 6.4 days. The mean score on the Glasgow Coma scale was 11.2 on admission 11.6 after 48 hours, and 12.2 on discharge. The mean FOUR Scale score was 12.2 on admission, 12.4 after 48 hours, and 12.5 at discharge.
Conclusions: This study indicates that both the Glasgow Coma Scale and the FOUR scale are effective in predicting outcomes for neurologically deteriorated critically ill patients. However, the FOUR scale proved to be more reliable when assessing outcomes in ICU patients.