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}
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.
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.