4.6 Article

The French Emergency National Survey: A description of emergency departments and patients in France

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198474

关键词

-

资金

  1. Directorate for Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics of the French Health and Social Affairs Ministry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Some major changes have occurred in emergency department (ED) organization since the early 2000s, such as the establishment of triage nurses and short-track systems. The objectives of this study were to describe the characteristics of French EDs organization and users, based on a nationwide cross-sectional survey. Methods The French Emergency Survey was a nationwide cross-sectional survey. All patients presenting to all EDs during a 24-hr period of June 2013 were included. Data collection concerned ED characteristics as well as patient characteristics. Results Among the 736 EDs in France, 734 were surveyed. Triage nurses and short-track systems were respectively implemented in 73% and 41% of general EDs. The median proportion of patients aged > 75 years was 14% and median hospitalisation rate was 20%. During the study period, 48,711 patients presented to one of the 734 EDs surveyed. Among them, 7% reported having no supplementary health or universal coverage (for people with lower incomes). Overall, 50% of adult patients had been seen by the triage nurse in less than 5 minutes, 74% had a time to first medical contact shorter than one hour and 55% had an ED length of stay shorter than 3 hours. Conclusion The French Emergency Survey is the first study to provide data on almost all EDs in France. It underlines how ED organization has been redesigned to face the increase in the annual census. French EDs appear to have a particular role for vulnerable people: age-related vulnerability and socio-economic vulnerability with an over-representation of patients without complementary health coverage.

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

4.6
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