4.6 Article

Evaluation of the Effects of Standard Rescue Procedure on Severe Trauma Treatment in China

期刊

CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 128, 期 10, 页码 1301-1305

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.156768

关键词

China; Procedure; Standard; Trauma; Treatment

资金

  1. Specific Research Project of Ministry of Health, China [201002014]
  2. 13th Five Year Research Plan of Ministry of Education, China [JKWZ-14-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of standard rescue procedure (SRP) in improving severe trauma treatments in China. Methods: This study was conducted in 12 hospitals located in geographically and industrially different cities in China. A standard procedure on severe trauma rescue was established as a general rule for staff training and patient treatment. A regional network (system) efficiently integrating prehospital rescue, emergency room treatments, and hospital specialist treatments was built under the rule for information sharing and improving severe trauma treatments. Treatment outcomes were compared between before and 1 year after the implementation of the SRP. Results: The outcomes of a total of 74,615 and 12,051 trauma cases were collected from 12 hospitals before and after the implementation of the SRP. Implementation of the SRP led to efficient cooperation and information sharing of different treatment services. The emergency response time, prehospital transit time, emergency rescue time, consultation call time, and mortality rate of patients were 24.24 +/- 4.32 min, 45.69 +/- 3.89 min, 6.38 +/- 1.05 min, 17.53 +/- 0.72 min, and 33.82% +/- 3.87% (n = 441), respectively, before the implementation of the standardization and significantly reduced to 10.11 +/- 3.21 min, 22.39 +/- 4.32 min, 3.26 +/- 0.89 min, 3.45 +/- 0.45 min, and 20.49% +/- 3.11%, separately (n = 495, P < 0.05) after that. Conclusions: Staff training and SRP can significantly improve the efficiency of severe trauma treatments in China.

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

4.6
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