...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >Calculating early warning scores--a classroom comparison of pen and paper and hand-held computer methods.
【24h】

Calculating early warning scores--a classroom comparison of pen and paper and hand-held computer methods.

机译：计算预警得分-笔和纸与手持计算机方法的课堂比较。

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

To assist in the early detection of critical illness, many hospitals now use a "track and trigger" system that allocates points to routine vital signs measurements on the basis of their derangement from an arbitrarily agreed "normal" range. These points are summed to provide an early warning score (EWS). Little is known about the accuracy with which EWS are calculated and charted. We compared the speed and accuracy of charting the weighted value attributed to each vital sign, and of calculating the EWS, using the traditional pen and paper method with that using a specially programmed, personal digital assistant (VitalPAC). Incorrect entries or omissions occurred in 24 (29%) of 84 EWS computed using pen/paper compared to 8 (10%) computed using the VitalPAC method. Fewer incorrect clinical actions were indicated using EWS derived via the VitalPAC method (4/84, 5%) than from those calculated using pen/paper (12/84, 14%). The mean time (+/-S.D.) taken for participants to calculate and chart a set of weighted values and EWS using the pen/paper method was 67.6+/-35.3 s (n=84). The corresponding time taken to enter a set of physiological data using the VitalPAC was 43.0+/-23.5 s (n=84). By comparison with the conventional pen/paper method, the use of VitalPAC was on average 1.6-times faster. The use of a device such as VitalPAC offers significant advantages both in speed and accuracy of recording of EWS.
机译：为了帮助及早发现重大疾病，许多医院现在使用“跟踪和触发”系统，该系统根据其偏离任意约定的“正常”范围的方式将点分配给常规生命体征测量。将这些点相加即可得出预警分数（EWS）。关于EWS的计算和制图的准确性知之甚少。我们比较了使用传统的笔和纸方法与使用专门编程的个人数字助理（VitalPAC）来绘制每个生命体征的加权值的图表和计算EWS的速度和准确性。使用笔/纸计算的84台EWS中有24台（29％）出现不正确的输入或遗漏，相比之下，使用VitalPAC方法计算的8台（10％）发生了错误。通过VitalPAC方法得出的EWS所指示的错误临床行为更少（4 / 84，5％），而笔/纸计算的临床行为（12 / 84，14％）更少。参与者使用笔/纸方法计算和绘制一组加权值和EWS所需的平均时间（+/- S.D。）为67.6 +/- 35.3 s（n = 84）。使用VitalPAC输入一组生理数据所需的时间为43.0 +/- 23.5 s（n = 84）。与传统的笔/纸方法相比，VitalPAC的使用平均快1.6倍。使用VitalPAC之类的设备在记录EWS的速度和准确性上都具有明显的优势。

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