Cargando…

The application value of the Modified Early Warning Score combined with age and injury site scores in the evaluation of injuries in emergency trauma patients

OBJECTIVE: To explore the application value of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) combined with age and injury site scores in predicting the criticality of emergency trauma patients. METHODS: The traditional MEWS was modified by combining it with age and injury site scores to form a new MEWS co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Qing, Ren, Yu-Qin, Qian, Yu-Fei, Li, Dan-Feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9727258/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36504967
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.914825
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To explore the application value of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) combined with age and injury site scores in predicting the criticality of emergency trauma patients. METHODS: The traditional MEWS was modified by combining it with age and injury site scores to form a new MEWS combined scoring standard. The clinical data were collected from a total of 372 trauma patients from the emergency department of the Nantong First People's Hospital between June and December 2019. A retrospective analysis was conducted, and the patients were scored using the MEWS combined with age and injury site scores. The patients were grouped according to their prognoses and clinical outcomes. A statistical analysis was conducted based on the ranges of the combined scores, and the results of the combined scores of the different groups were compared. RESULTS: Among the 372 patients, the average score was 3.68 ± 1.25 points in the survival group, 8.33 ± 2.24 points in the death within 24 h group, and 8.38 ± 1.51 points in the death within 30 days of hospitalization group, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The average score was 2.74 ± 0.69 points in the outpatient treatment group, 4.19 ± 0.72 points in the emergency stay group, 5.40 ± 0.70 points in the specialist inpatient group, 8.71 ± 2.31 points in the ICU group, and 7.82 ± 1.66 points in the specialist unplanned transfer to ICU group, with the differences between the groups being statistically significant (p < 0.05). The average length of hospital stay for patients with a joint score within the range of 6–8 points was 10.86 ± 2.47 days, with a direct ICU admission rate of 22.00% and an unplanned ICU admission rate of 16.00%. Patients with a joint score >8 points had an average length of hospital stay of 27.05 ± 4.85 days, with a direct ICU admission rate of 66.67% and an unplanned ICU admission rate of 33.33%. CONCLUSION: Age and injury site are important high-risk indicators for trauma assessment, and using them in combination with the MEWS could improve the assessment of emergency patients with trauma, increasing the accuracy of pre-screening triage and reducing rescue time. Therefore, this joint scoring method might be worthy of clinical promotion and application.