Literature DB >> 17993947

Agreement between prehospital and emergency department glasgow coma scores.

Jeffrey D Kerby1, Paul A MacLennan, Jon N Burton, Gerald McGwin, Loring W Rue.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score is widely accepted as the cornerstone in the assessment of neurologic function after trauma and is being used to select patients for enrollment in prehospital (Ph) intervention trials. This study was performed to assess the degree of agreement between Ph-GCS and emergency department (ED)-GCS scores in our trauma system patients.
METHODS: From January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2003, 3,669 Emergency Medical System records were linked to our institution's trauma registry. Patients were classified according to their Ph-GCS and ED-GCS scores: 13 to 15, mild; 9 to 12, moderate; and 3 to 8, severe injury. Weighted kappa-coefficients and their 95% confidence intervals were used to examine the agreement between Ph-GCS and ED-GCS patient classifications.
RESULTS: Percent agreement was high for the mild category (97.9%) but diminished for moderate (9.3%) and severe (63.3%) groups. Overall, the kappa-coefficient was 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.48-0.58), indicating moderate agreement. By GCS component, kappa-coefficients were similar, ranging from 0.52 for the verbal component to 0.48 for the eye and motor components. kappa-values decreased even further for those with longer (i.e. >or=20 minutes) transport times.
CONCLUSION: In this study, differences between Ph-GCS and ED-GCS were seen in the patient population with moderate to severe head injury. Individual component score agreement was moderate for all categories, with agreement worsening for patients with longer transport times. Although this suggests improvement in the patient's condition during transport, inter-rater variability between Ph and ED personnel cannot be excluded. The utility of Ph-GCS in Ph interventional trials for determining the presence of significant head injury will need to be further evaluated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17993947     DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318157d9e8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Trauma        ISSN: 0022-5282


  18 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of coma: a critical appraisal of popular scoring systems.

Authors:  Joshua Kornbluth; Anish Bhardwaj
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 2.  The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review.

Authors:  Florence C M Reith; Ruben Van den Brande; Anneliese Synnot; Russell Gruen; Andrew I R Maas
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Validation of a new coma scale, the FOUR score, in the emergency department.

Authors:  Latha G Stead; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Anjali Bhagra; Rahul Kashyap; M Fernanda Bellolio; David L Nash; Sailaja Enduri; Raquel Schears; Bamlet William
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 4.  Neurocritical care nursing research priorities.

Authors:  D M Olson; M M McNett; S Livesay; P D Le Roux; J I Suarez; C Bautista
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.210

5.  Glasgow coma scale motor score and pupillary reaction to predict six-month mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury: comparison of field and admission assessment.

Authors:  Marek Majdan; Ewout W Steyerberg; Daan Nieboer; Walter Mauritz; Martin Rusnak; Hester F Lingsma
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 5.269

6.  Identification of a neurologic scale that optimizes EMS detection of older adult traumatic brain injury patients who require transport to a trauma center.

Authors:  Erin B Wasserman; Manish N Shah; Courtney M C Jones; Jeremy T Cushman; Jeffrey M Caterino; Jeffrey J Bazarian; Suzanne M Gillespie; Julius D Cheng; Ann Dozier
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 3.077

7.  Organ failure and tight glycemic control in the SPRINT study.

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Christopher G Pretty; Leesa Pfeifer; Geoffrey M Shaw; Jean-Charles Preiser; Aaron J Le Compte; Jessica Lin; Darren Hewett; Katherine T Moorhead; Thomas Desaive
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 9.097

8.  Randomized controlled trial of a scoring aid to improve Glasgow Coma Scale scoring by emergency medical services providers.

Authors:  Amanda Feldman; Kimberly W Hart; Christopher J Lindsell; Jason T McMullan
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 5.721

9.  Evidence-based improvement of the National Trauma Triage Protocol: The Glasgow Coma Scale versus Glasgow Coma Scale motor subscale.

Authors:  Joshua B Brown; Raquel M Forsythe; Nicole A Stassen; Andrew B Peitzman; Timothy R Billiar; Jason L Sperry; Mark L Gestring
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.313

10.  Knowledge of Glasgow coma scale by air-rescue physicians.

Authors:  Catherine Heim; Patrick Schoettker; Nicolas Gilliard; Donat R Spahn
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.