4.4 Article

Tertiary survey in trauma patients: avoiding neglected injuries

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(14)70014-2

关键词

Delayed diagnosis; Diagnostic errors; Multiple trauma; Neglected diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Medical personnel in trauma centres in several countries have realised that undiagnosed injuries are common and are now focussing their attention on reducing the incidence of these injuries. Tertiary survey is a simple and easy approach to address the issue of undiagnosed injuries in trauma patients. Tertiary survey consists of reevaluating patients 24 hours after admission by means of an anamnesis protocol, physical examination, review of complementary tests and request for new tests when necessary. Objective: To show the importance of tertiary survey in trauma patients for diagnosing injuries undetected at the time of initial survey. Methods: A standardised protocol was used to perform a prospective observational study with patients admitted through the emergency department, Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Santa Casa de Sao Paulo. The patients were reevaluated 24 hours after admission or after recovering consciousness. New physical examinations were performed, tests performed on admission were reassessed and new tests were requested, when necessary. Results: Between February 2012 and February 2013, 526 patients were evaluated, 81 (15.4%) were polytraumatised, and 445 (84.6%) had low-energy trauma. A total of 57 new injuries were diagnosed in 40 patients, 61.4% of which affected the lower limb. Diagnosis of 11 new injuries (19.3%) resulted in changes in procedure. Conclusion: The application of the protocol for tertiary survey proved to be easy, inexpensive and beneficial to patients (particularly polytraumatised patients) because it enabled identification of important injuries that were not detected on admission in a large group of patients. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据