Evaluation of a risk score for interhospital transport of critically ill patients

Background: Interhospital transfer imposes essential risk for critically ill patients. The Risk Score for Transport Patients (RSTP) scale can be used as a triage tool for patient severity. Methods: In total, 128 transfers of critically ill patients were classified in two groups of severity according...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Emergency medicine journal : EMJ 2006-04, Vol.23 (4), p.313-317
Main Authors: Markakis, C, Dalezios, M, Chatzicostas, C, Chalkiadaki, A, Politi, K, Agouridakis, P J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
ambulance
area under the curve
AUC
Cardiac arrhythmia
CCU
Child
Child, Preschool
critical care unit
Critical Illness - therapy
critically ill
Epidemiologic Methods
Female
GCS
Glasgow Coma Score
Hospitals
Humans
ICU
ICU transfer
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Intensive care
intensive care unit
likelihood ratio of positive test
LRPT
Male
Middle Aged
Mortality
negative predictive value
NPV
Ostomy
Positive predictive value
PPV
Prehospital Care
Prognosis
Pulmonary arteries
receiver operating characteristic
Respiration
Risk Score for Transport Patients
ROC
RSTP
SBP
Severity of Illness Index
systolic blood pressure
Transportation of Patients
Triage - methods
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Interhospital transfer imposes essential risk for critically ill patients. The Risk Score for Transport Patients (RSTP) scale can be used as a triage tool for patient severity. Methods: In total, 128 transfers of critically ill patients were classified in two groups of severity according to the RSTP. Statistical analysis was performed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and goodness of fit statistics. Results: In total, 66 patients (51.5%) were classified as group I and 62 (48.4%) as group II. Major en route complications were more common in group II patients (19.3% v 3%, p
ISSN:1472-0205
1472-0213
DOI:10.1136/emj.2005.026435