超声检查在创伤:全国范围的横断面调查。

IF 3.6 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Critical Ultrasound Journal Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-06-20 DOI:10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2
Jesper Weile, Klaus Nielsen, Stine C Primdahl, Christian A Frederiksen, Christian B Laursen, Erik Sloth, Hans Kirkegaard
{"title":"超声检查在创伤:全国范围的横断面调查。","authors":"Jesper Weile,&nbsp;Klaus Nielsen,&nbsp;Stine C Primdahl,&nbsp;Christian A Frederiksen,&nbsp;Christian B Laursen,&nbsp;Erik Sloth,&nbsp;Hans Kirkegaard","doi":"10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) protocol is considered beneficial in emergent evaluation of trauma patients with blunt or penetrating injury and has become integrated into the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol. No guidelines exist as to the use of ultrasonography in trauma in Denmark. We aimed to determine the current use of ultrasonography for assessing trauma patients in Denmark.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation of ultrasonography usage in trauma care. The first phase consisted of an Internet-based investigation of existing guidelines, and the second phase was a series of structured interviews of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and radiologists on call in all hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Guidelines were obtained from all 22 hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark. Twenty-one (95.5%) of the guidelines included and recommended FAST as part of trauma assessment. The recommended person to perform the examination was the radiologist in n = 11 (50.0%), the surgeon in n = 6 (27.3%), the anesthesiologist in n = 1 (4.5%), and unspecified in n = 3 (13.6%) facilities. FAST indications varied between circulatory instability n = 8 (36.4%), team leader's discretion n = 6 (27.3%), abdominal trauma n = 3 (13.6%), and not specified n = 6 (27.3%). Telephone interviews revealed that exams were always n = 8 (36.4%) or often n = 4 (18.2%) registered in the patients' charts. The remaining n = 10 (45.5%) facilities either never registered n = 2 (9.1%), it was not possible to register n = 1 (4.5%), or unknown by the trauma leaders n = 7 (31.8%). Images were often stored in n = 1 (4.5%), never stored in n = 10 (45.5%), not possible to store in n = 2 (9.1%), and unknown in n = 9 (40.9%) facilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ultrasonography was used in a non-uniform fashion by multiple specialties in Danish trauma facilities. Very few images from FAST examinations were stored and documentation was scanty. National guidelines on application and documentation of ultrasonography in trauma are called for.</p>","PeriodicalId":46598,"journal":{"name":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasonography in trauma: a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation.\",\"authors\":\"Jesper Weile,&nbsp;Klaus Nielsen,&nbsp;Stine C Primdahl,&nbsp;Christian A Frederiksen,&nbsp;Christian B Laursen,&nbsp;Erik Sloth,&nbsp;Hans Kirkegaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) protocol is considered beneficial in emergent evaluation of trauma patients with blunt or penetrating injury and has become integrated into the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol. No guidelines exist as to the use of ultrasonography in trauma in Denmark. We aimed to determine the current use of ultrasonography for assessing trauma patients in Denmark.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation of ultrasonography usage in trauma care. The first phase consisted of an Internet-based investigation of existing guidelines, and the second phase was a series of structured interviews of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and radiologists on call in all hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Guidelines were obtained from all 22 hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark. Twenty-one (95.5%) of the guidelines included and recommended FAST as part of trauma assessment. The recommended person to perform the examination was the radiologist in n = 11 (50.0%), the surgeon in n = 6 (27.3%), the anesthesiologist in n = 1 (4.5%), and unspecified in n = 3 (13.6%) facilities. FAST indications varied between circulatory instability n = 8 (36.4%), team leader's discretion n = 6 (27.3%), abdominal trauma n = 3 (13.6%), and not specified n = 6 (27.3%). Telephone interviews revealed that exams were always n = 8 (36.4%) or often n = 4 (18.2%) registered in the patients' charts. The remaining n = 10 (45.5%) facilities either never registered n = 2 (9.1%), it was not possible to register n = 1 (4.5%), or unknown by the trauma leaders n = 7 (31.8%). Images were often stored in n = 1 (4.5%), never stored in n = 10 (45.5%), not possible to store in n = 2 (9.1%), and unknown in n = 9 (40.9%) facilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ultrasonography was used in a non-uniform fashion by multiple specialties in Danish trauma facilities. Very few images from FAST examinations were stored and documentation was scanty. National guidelines on application and documentation of ultrasonography in trauma are called for.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Ultrasound Journal\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Ultrasound Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/6/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-017-0071-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景:创伤超声聚焦评估(FAST)方案被认为有利于钝性或穿透性创伤患者的紧急评估,并已被纳入高级创伤生命支持(ATLS)方案。在丹麦,超声检查在创伤中的应用尚无指导方针。我们的目的是确定目前使用超声检查评估创伤患者在丹麦。方法:我们在全国范围内对超声检查在创伤护理中的应用进行了横断面调查。第一阶段包括对现有指南进行基于互联网的调查,第二阶段是对丹麦所有接收创伤患者的医院的骨科医生、麻醉师和随叫随到的放射科医生进行一系列结构化访谈。结果:从丹麦所有接收创伤患者的22家医院获得了指南。21份(95.5%)指南包括并推荐FAST作为创伤评估的一部分。推荐进行检查的人员分别是放射科医师(n = 11)(50.0%)、外科医师(n = 6)(27.3%)、麻醉科医师(n = 1)(4.5%)和未指定机构(n = 3)(13.6%)。FAST适应症在循环不稳定n = 8(36.4%)、团队领导酌情n = 6(27.3%)、腹部创伤n = 3(13.6%)和未指定n = 6(27.3%)之间存在差异。电话访谈显示,在患者病历中登记的检查总是n = 8(36.4%)或经常n = 4(18.2%)。其余n = 10家(45.5%)医院未登记n = 2家(9.1%),无法登记n = 1家(4.5%),或创伤领导不知道n = 7家(31.8%)。图像通常存储在n = 1(4.5%),从未存储在n = 10(45.5%),无法存储在n = 2(9.1%),未知存储在n = 9(40.9%)。结论:超声检查在丹麦创伤医院的多专科应用不统一。存储的FAST检查图像很少,文献也很少。需要制定超声检查在创伤中的应用和记录的国家指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Ultrasonography in trauma: a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation.

Ultrasonography in trauma: a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation.

Ultrasonography in trauma: a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation.

Ultrasonography in trauma: a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation.

Background: The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) protocol is considered beneficial in emergent evaluation of trauma patients with blunt or penetrating injury and has become integrated into the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol. No guidelines exist as to the use of ultrasonography in trauma in Denmark. We aimed to determine the current use of ultrasonography for assessing trauma patients in Denmark.

Methods: We conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation of ultrasonography usage in trauma care. The first phase consisted of an Internet-based investigation of existing guidelines, and the second phase was a series of structured interviews of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and radiologists on call in all hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark.

Results: Guidelines were obtained from all 22 hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark. Twenty-one (95.5%) of the guidelines included and recommended FAST as part of trauma assessment. The recommended person to perform the examination was the radiologist in n = 11 (50.0%), the surgeon in n = 6 (27.3%), the anesthesiologist in n = 1 (4.5%), and unspecified in n = 3 (13.6%) facilities. FAST indications varied between circulatory instability n = 8 (36.4%), team leader's discretion n = 6 (27.3%), abdominal trauma n = 3 (13.6%), and not specified n = 6 (27.3%). Telephone interviews revealed that exams were always n = 8 (36.4%) or often n = 4 (18.2%) registered in the patients' charts. The remaining n = 10 (45.5%) facilities either never registered n = 2 (9.1%), it was not possible to register n = 1 (4.5%), or unknown by the trauma leaders n = 7 (31.8%). Images were often stored in n = 1 (4.5%), never stored in n = 10 (45.5%), not possible to store in n = 2 (9.1%), and unknown in n = 9 (40.9%) facilities.

Conclusion: Ultrasonography was used in a non-uniform fashion by multiple specialties in Danish trauma facilities. Very few images from FAST examinations were stored and documentation was scanty. National guidelines on application and documentation of ultrasonography in trauma are called for.

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
Critical Ultrasound Journal
Critical Ultrasound Journal RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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