期刊文献+

Modern concepts of transport in multiple trauma: a nar- rative review 被引量:3

Modern concepts of transport in multiple trauma: a nar- rative review
原文传递
导出
摘要 Multiple variables can influence triage decision in multiple trauma. Recognition of priorities and selection of the destination can be successfully achieved by field triage and individualized clinical judgment. This narrative review summarizes the new options and protocols for transport of injured subjects. There are four levels of emergency medical providers including first responders and three levels of emergency medical technicians. Two distinct accepted protocols for transport are known as scoop and run and treat and then transfer. The former provides mini- mum lifesaving treatment at the scene of accident followed by transferring the patient(s) as soon as possible, and thelatter mainly emphasizes the need for complete stabilization as a prerequisite for safe transport. The destination and mode of transport are selected according to clinical capa- bilities of the receiving hospital, transfer time from the scene to the facility, patient's medical condition, accessibility of the scene, and weather. Two common methods of transfer are ground transport, including various type of ambulances, and air medical transport, i.e. helicopter and airplane.
出处 《Chinese Journal of Traumatology》 CAS CSCD 2013年第3期169-175,共7页 中华创伤杂志(英文版)
关键词 TRANSPORTATION of patients Multiple TRAUMA TRIAGE EMERGENCY medical service communication systems Transportation of patients Multiple trauma Triage Emergency medical service communication systems
  • 相关文献

参考文献39

  • 1American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons, 2006.
  • 2Hong R, Sierzenski PR, Bollinger M, et al. Does the simple triage and rapid treatment method appropriately triage patients based on trauma injury severity score? Am J Disaster Med 2008; 3( 5):265-71.
  • 3Salomone JP. Prehospital triage of trauma patients: a trauma surgeon's perspective. Prehosp Emerg Care 2006;10(3):311-3.
  • 4Sasser SM, Hunt RC, Faul M, et al. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations ofthe National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011. MMWR Recomm Rep 2012;61(RR- 1): 1-20.
  • 5McConnell KJ, Newgard CD, Mullins RJ, et al. Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for headinjured patients. Health Serv Res 2005;40(2):435-57.
  • 6Cudnik MT, Newgard CD, Sayre MR, et al. Level I versus Level II trauma centers: an outcomes-based assessment. J Trauma 2009;66(5): 1321-6.
  • 7Scarborough K, Slone DS, Uribe P, et al. Reduced mortality at a community hospital trauma center: the impact of changing trauma level designation From II to I. Arch Surg 2008; 143(1 ):22-7.
  • 8Caterino JM, Raubenolt A, Cudnik MT. Modification of Glasgow Coma Scale criteria for injured elders. Acad Emerg Med 2011; 18(10): 1014-21.
  • 9Santaniello JM, Esposito TJ, Luchette FA, et al. Mechanism of injury does not predict acuity or level of service need: field triage criteria revisited. Surgery 2003; 134(4):698- 703.
  • 10Sasser SM, Hunt RC, Sullivent EE, et al. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients. Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR Recomm Rep 2009;58 (RR-1):1-35.

同被引文献21

引证文献3

二级引证文献46

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部