...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >Comparison of sequential and simultaneous breathing and pulse check by healthcare professionals during simulated scenarios.
【24h】

Comparison of sequential and simultaneous breathing and pulse check by healthcare professionals during simulated scenarios.

机译：在模拟情况下，医护人员进行的顺序呼吸和同步呼吸以及脉搏检查的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BACKGROUND: Basic life support guidelines for healthcare professionals recommend a sequential breathing and carotid pulse check allowing up to 10 s for each assessment. Life support providers are sometimes taught to do a simultaneous assessment of breathing and pulse check for up to 10 s. It is not clear whether this assessment improves diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We recruited 119 healthcare professionals. The SIM-Man was used to develop 10 simulated cases scenarios. To assess performance, 89 participants did 10 simultaneous assessments followed by 10 sequential assessments, and 29 participants did the assessment techniques in reverse order. The primary outcome of the study was the number of correct diagnoses made with each assessment method. RESULTS: There were more correct diagnoses with a sequential assessment; 48.2% (569 out of 1180) compared to 33.5% (395 out of 1180) for the simultaneous method. Only 26.3% (n=31) had more than five accurate diagnoses with a simultaneous assessment, compared to 44.1% (n=52) for sequential assessments. Those performing sequential assessment achieved a median score of 5/10 correct diagnoses compared to a median score of 2.5/10 for the simultaneous method (Wilcoxon Z=-4.63, p<0.001). Sensitivity for the pulse check was 99% for both assessments; specificity was 48.9% for a simultaneous assessment and 61.9% for the sequential approach. For breathing check, specificity, sensitivity and accuracy were also higher with the latter method (sensitivity 99.6%, specificity 70.6% and accuracy 88%) CONCLUSION: A sequential assessment of breathing and pulse by healthcare professionals has greater diagnostic accuracy in simulated case scenarios.
机译：背景：针对医疗保健专业人员的基本生命支持指南建议进行连续呼吸和颈动脉搏动检查，每次评估最多需要10 s。有时会指导生命支持提供者同时进行呼吸和脉搏检查的评估，最长10 ​​s。尚不清楚该评估是否可以提高诊断准确性。方法：我们招募了119名医疗保健专业人员。 SIM-Man用于开发10个模拟案例场景。为了评估绩效，有89名参与者同时进行了10次评估，随后又进行了10次连续评估，有29名参与者以相反的顺序进行了评估。该研究的主要结果是每种评估方法做出的正确诊断的次数。结果：进行顺序评估的确诊率更高; 48.2％（1180中为569），而同期方法为33.5％（1180中为395）。只有26.3％（n = 31）可以同时进行五个以上的准确诊断，而顺序评估为44.1％（n = 52）。进行顺序评估的患者获得了5/10正确诊断的中位数，而同期方法的中位数为2.5 / 10（Wilcoxon Z = -4.63，p <0.001）。两项评估的脉搏检查敏感性均为99％;同时评估的特异性为48.9％，顺序评估的特异性为61.9％。对于呼吸检查，后一种方法的特异性，敏感性和准确性也更高（敏感性99.6％，特异性70.6％和准确性88％）。结论：在模拟病例中，医护人员对呼吸和脉搏的连续评估具有更高的诊断准确性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号