急诊医疗服务临床医生使用儿科观察优先评分的准确性。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Caleb E Ward, Trang Ha, Graeme Morland-Tellez, Haroon Shaukat, Damian Roland, James M Chamberlain
{"title":"急诊医疗服务临床医生使用儿科观察优先评分的准确性。","authors":"Caleb E Ward, Trang Ha, Graeme Morland-Tellez, Haroon Shaukat, Damian Roland, James M Chamberlain","doi":"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>One barrier to including low-acuity children in alternative EMS disposition programs is a lack of triage tools to identify children at low risk of deterioration. The Pediatric Observation Priority Score (POPS) is a triage tool developed in the United Kingdom, incorporating vital signs, clinical observations, and medical history. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether US EMS clinicians can accurately assign a POPS in a controlled setting and (2) whether there is a difference in accuracy between paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an observational study with EMS clinicians. Participants were provided with an overview of the POPS and then reviewed 10 patient videos. Participants calculated a POPS for each case. Physicians with expertise in pediatric EMS and medical education independently assigned the reference POPS. We calculated the proportion of assigned POPS within 2 points of the reference score and compared the accuracy of paramedics and EMTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 50 participants (32% paramedics, 68% EMTs). The proportion of assigned POPS within 2 points of the reference was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), and for individual scenarios ranged from 0.94 (0.84-0.98) to 1.0 (0.93-1.0). The component with the greatest deviation from the reference score was Gestalt clinician concern. There was no significant difference in accuracy between paramedics and EMTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both paramedics and EMTs accurately assigned POPS in this controlled setting. Further research is needed to determine whether EMS clinicians can accurately assign the POPS to actual patients and identify POPS thresholds to guide patient disposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":19996,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emergency Medical Services Clinician Accuracy Using the Pediatric Observation Priority Score.\",\"authors\":\"Caleb E Ward, Trang Ha, Graeme Morland-Tellez, Haroon Shaukat, Damian Roland, James M Chamberlain\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>One barrier to including low-acuity children in alternative EMS disposition programs is a lack of triage tools to identify children at low risk of deterioration. The Pediatric Observation Priority Score (POPS) is a triage tool developed in the United Kingdom, incorporating vital signs, clinical observations, and medical history. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether US EMS clinicians can accurately assign a POPS in a controlled setting and (2) whether there is a difference in accuracy between paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an observational study with EMS clinicians. Participants were provided with an overview of the POPS and then reviewed 10 patient videos. Participants calculated a POPS for each case. Physicians with expertise in pediatric EMS and medical education independently assigned the reference POPS. We calculated the proportion of assigned POPS within 2 points of the reference score and compared the accuracy of paramedics and EMTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 50 participants (32% paramedics, 68% EMTs). The proportion of assigned POPS within 2 points of the reference was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), and for individual scenarios ranged from 0.94 (0.84-0.98) to 1.0 (0.93-1.0). The component with the greatest deviation from the reference score was Gestalt clinician concern. There was no significant difference in accuracy between paramedics and EMTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both paramedics and EMTs accurately assigned POPS in this controlled setting. Further research is needed to determine whether EMS clinicians can accurately assign the POPS to actual patients and identify POPS thresholds to guide patient disposition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric emergency care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric emergency care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003425\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003425","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:将低视力儿童纳入替代性EMS处置方案的一个障碍是缺乏识别低恶化风险儿童的分类工具。儿科观察优先评分(POPS)是英国开发的一种分诊工具,包括生命体征、临床观察和病史。我们的目的是确定(1)美国EMS临床医生是否能准确地在受控环境中分配持久性有机污染物;(2)护理人员和紧急医疗技术人员(emt)之间的准确性是否存在差异。方法:我们对EMS临床医生进行了一项观察性研究。向参与者提供了持久性有机污染物的概述,然后审查了10个患者录像。参与者为每个案例计算持久性有机污染物。具有儿科EMS和医学教育专业知识的医生独立指定了参考持久性有机污染物。我们计算了在参考评分2分范围内指定持久性有机污染物的比例,并比较了护理人员和急救人员的准确性。结果:我们招募了50名参与者(32%的护理人员,68%的急救人员)。在参考值2个点范围内指定持久性有机污染物的比例为0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99),个别情景的范围为0.94(0.84-0.98)至1.0(0.93-1.0)。与参考评分偏差最大的成分是格式塔临床医生的关注。护理人员和急救人员在准确性上没有显著差异。结论:护理人员和急救人员都准确地在这个控制环境中分配持久性有机污染物。EMS临床医生是否能够准确地为实际患者分配持久性有机污染物,并确定持久性有机污染物的阈值,以指导患者的处置,需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Emergency Medical Services Clinician Accuracy Using the Pediatric Observation Priority Score.

Objectives: One barrier to including low-acuity children in alternative EMS disposition programs is a lack of triage tools to identify children at low risk of deterioration. The Pediatric Observation Priority Score (POPS) is a triage tool developed in the United Kingdom, incorporating vital signs, clinical observations, and medical history. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether US EMS clinicians can accurately assign a POPS in a controlled setting and (2) whether there is a difference in accuracy between paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs).

Methods: We conducted an observational study with EMS clinicians. Participants were provided with an overview of the POPS and then reviewed 10 patient videos. Participants calculated a POPS for each case. Physicians with expertise in pediatric EMS and medical education independently assigned the reference POPS. We calculated the proportion of assigned POPS within 2 points of the reference score and compared the accuracy of paramedics and EMTs.

Results: We recruited 50 participants (32% paramedics, 68% EMTs). The proportion of assigned POPS within 2 points of the reference was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99), and for individual scenarios ranged from 0.94 (0.84-0.98) to 1.0 (0.93-1.0). The component with the greatest deviation from the reference score was Gestalt clinician concern. There was no significant difference in accuracy between paramedics and EMTs.

Conclusions: Both paramedics and EMTs accurately assigned POPS in this controlled setting. Further research is needed to determine whether EMS clinicians can accurately assign the POPS to actual patients and identify POPS thresholds to guide patient disposition.

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
Pediatric emergency care
Pediatric emergency care 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
577
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Emergency Care®, features clinically relevant original articles with an EM perspective on the care of acutely ill or injured children and adolescents. The journal is aimed at both the pediatrician who wants to know more about treating and being compensated for minor emergency cases and the emergency physicians who must treat children or adolescents in more than one case in there.
×
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