Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Australas Emerg Care ; 21(3): 105-110, 2018 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30998881

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is one of the most commonly used patient assessment tools. This study aimed to determine whether an assessment aid can improve the GCS scoring accuracy by helicopter rescuers in Hong Kong. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, Air Crewman Officers (ACMOs) of Government Flying Service in Hong Kong were randomised into two groups, with and without assessment aid. The group with the assessment aid was provided a printed copy of the GCS scoring table while watching the patient simulated videos. Ten videos with GCS scores ranging from 3 to 15 were used to test the performance of total GCS (tGCS) and motor component of GCS (mGCS) scoring. RESULTS: 78% (n=25/32) of ACMOs participated in the study. By comparing the groups with and without an assessment aid, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of tGCS score (60% versus 60%; p=0.85) or mGCS score (80% versus 80%; p=0.75). Overall, mGCS has a higher accuracy than tGCS (p<0.001). The accuracy of mGCS was better than tGCS in mild and moderate brain injury scenarios. CONCLUSION: The use of an assessment aid did not improve GCS scoring by helicopter rescuers. The assessing of mGCS was more accurate than tGCS, further supporting the use of mGCS for prehospital conscious level assessment.


Subject(s)
Air Ambulances/standards , Glasgow Coma Scale/standards , Research Design/standards , Adult , Air Ambulances/statistics & numerical data , Checklist/instrumentation , Checklist/standards , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Emergency Medical Services/standards , Glasgow Coma Scale/statistics & numerical data , Hong Kong , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...