3.9 Article

Does telephone triage delay significant medical treatment? Advice nurse service vs on-call pediatricians

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
卷 157, 期 7, 页码 635-641

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.157.7.635

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [3 R01 HS10604] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Advice nurse call centers are used to en sure access to medical advice, thereby potentially reducing the costs of health services. Objective: To determine if medical advice from advice nurses and on-call physicians delays significant medical treatment in a general pediatrics population. Design: Randomized controlled trial Setting: A university general pediatrics faculty practice. Participants: Parents. or guardians calling for after-hours advice regarding their children. Intervention: After-hours medical advice calls were randomized at the time of the call to an advice nurse or an on-call pediatrician. Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of callers who sought medical care not advised by the advice nurse or on-call pediatrician and the proportion who received unadvised significant care. Results: There were 1182 advice calls: 566 in the pediatrician group and 616 in the advice nurse group. There were no significant differences in the types of telephone triage advice in the physician and advice nurse groups. There was no significant difference in the proportion of callers who sought unadvised care (108 [19.9%] in the physician group vs 110 [19.0%] in the advice nurse group) or in the proportion of callers who received unadvised significant care (23 [4.2%] in the physician group vs 25 [4.3%] in the advice nurse group). Conclusions: The proportions of callers who sought unadvised medical care and who received unadvised significant care were not significantly different in the advice nurse and pediatrician groups. This suggests that advice nurses do not delay significant medical treatment when compared with pediatricians.

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

3.9
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