RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: In this study, emergency physicians and on-call radiologists were compared regarding identification of fatal injuries on computed tomographic (CT) scans in patients with trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiply injured patients who were older than 18 years and underwent CT scanning were included in the study. The CT scans were interpreted by the responsible emergency physician. At the same time, these images were also evaluated by the on-call radiologist. Final evaluation was done 1 week later by a radiology instructor who knew the clinical follow-up of the patient. RESULTS: The study included 156 patients. The mean age of the patients included in the study was found to be 41.6 years. Less than half (33.5%) of the patients were female and 86.5% were male. A total of 482 CT scans were performed in the patients. Regarding brain CTs, the concordance rate for emergency physicians was 98%, whereas it was 94% for on-call radiologists. Regarding thoracic CTs, the concordance rate for emergency physicians was 91%, whereas was 93% for on-call radiologists. There was a perfect concordance (κ value > 0.75) for on-call radiologists and emergency physicians in terms of brain and thoracic CTs. Regarding abdominal-pelvic CTs, the concordance rate for emergency physicians was 97%, whereas it was 98% for on-call radiologists. Moderate concordance (κ range = 0.40-0.75) was detected for emergency physicians in terms of identification of liver, spleen, kidney, and intra-abdominal/retroperitoneal hemorrhages. There was a perfect concordance (κ value > 0.75) for pelvic fractures. CONCLUSION: In this study, it was shown that emergency physicians were successful in identifying fatal injuries on trauma CT images after a short-term training on interpretation of trauma CTs.
Asunto(s)
Traumatismos Abdominales/diagnóstico por imagen , Medicina de Emergencia , Hemorragia/diagnóstico por imagen , Traumatismo Múltiple/diagnóstico por imagen , Radiología , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Adulto , Lesiones Encefálicas/diagnóstico por imagen , Competencia Clínica , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Femenino , Fracturas Óseas/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Riñón/diagnóstico por imagen , Riñón/lesiones , Hígado/diagnóstico por imagen , Hígado/lesiones , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Huesos Pélvicos/diagnóstico por imagen , Huesos Pélvicos/lesiones , Bazo/diagnóstico por imagen , Bazo/lesiones , Traumatismos Torácicos/diagnóstico por imagen , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the incidence and status of urgent medical conditions, the attitudes of health professionals who encounter such conditions, the adequacy of medical kits and training of cabin crew in data-received-company aircrafts suggested by Aerospace Medical Association, and the demographic data of patients. METHODS: Data were collected from medical records of a major flight company from 2011 through 2013. All patients with complete records were included in the study. Numerical variables were defined as median and interquartiles (IQR) for median, while categorical variables were defined as numbers and percentage. RESULTS: During the study period, 10,100,000 passengers were carried by the company flights, with 1,312 (0.013%) demands for urgent medical support (UMS). The median age of the passengers who requested UMS was 45 years (IQR: 29-62). Females constituted 698 (53.2%) among the patients, and 721 (55%) patients were evaluated by medical professionals found among passengers. The most common nontraumatic complaints resulting in requests for UMS were flight anxiety (311 patients, 23.7%) and dyspnea (145 patients, 11%). The most common traumatic complaint was burns (221 patients, 16.8%) resulting from trauma during flight. A total of 22 (1.67%) emergency landings occurred for which the most frequent reasons were epilepsy (22.7%) and death (18.2%). Deaths during flights were recorded in 13 patients, whose median age was 77 years (IQR: 69-82), which was significantly higher compared to the age of patients requiring UMS (p < 0.0001). A total of 592 (45%) patients did not require any treatment for UMS. Medical kits and training were found to be sufficient according to the symptomatic treatments. CONCLUSION: Most of the urgent cases encountered during flights can be facilitated with basic medical support. "Traumatic emergency procedures inflight medical care" would be useful for additional training. Medical professionals as passengers are significantly involved in encountered emergency situations. Adding automated external defibrillator and pulse oximetry to recommended kits and training can help facilitate staff decisions such as emergency landings and tele-assistance.