探讨急诊预检分诊标准在急诊创伤患者分诊中的应用效果，为急性创伤的患者进行快速准确的分诊提供可参考的依据，找到提高预检分诊护士能力的相关因素，进而改进预检分诊管理。

选择右江民族医学院附属梧州医院急诊科就诊的600例创伤患者，根据到院的先后时间进行分组。将2021年4月至9月就诊的300例创伤患者设为对照组，其中男性211例，女性89例；年龄14～97岁，平均(50.10±16.48)岁。将2021年10月至2022年3月就诊的300例创伤患者设为观察组，其中男性200例，女性100例；年龄14～97岁，平均(50.27±17.71)岁。对照组使用传统分诊方法，观察组使用急诊预检分诊标准分别进行分诊、候诊、接诊和处置。分析比较两组急诊创伤患者的预检分诊用时、诊治等待时间、急救反应时间、分诊准确率。

观察组总体分诊正确率为96.3%，明显高于对照组88.0%，差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。观察组急性创伤预检分诊用时Ⅰ级(3.18min)、Ⅱ级(3.22min)、Ⅲ级(3.35 min)、Ⅳ级(3.72 min )，诊治等待时间Ⅰ级(4.00 min)、Ⅱ级(6.15 min)、Ⅲ级(11.62 min)、Ⅳ级(12.76 min)，急救反应时间Ⅰ级(2.09 min)、Ⅱ级(3.59 min)、Ⅲ级(10.38 min)、Ⅳ级(12.28 min)，均少于对照组预检分诊用时Ⅰ级(4.07 min)、Ⅱ级(4.20 min)、Ⅲ级(3.93 min)、Ⅳ级(3.80 min)，诊治等待时间Ⅰ级(4.79 min)、Ⅱ级(7.64 min)、Ⅲ级(14.60 min)、Ⅳ级(15.60 min)，急救反应时间Ⅰ级(5.71 min)、Ⅱ级(9.38 min)、Ⅲ级(16.75 min)、Ⅳ级(16.80 min)，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

采用急诊预检分诊标准进行快速准确分诊，是保证急性创伤患者及时接受急诊急救的关键。

To explore the application effect of emergency pre-screening triage standard in the triage of emergency trauma patients, to provide a reference of rapid and accurate triage for emergency trauma patients and to find out relevant factors to improve the ability of pre-screening triage nurses, and then make pre-screening triage management better.

A total of 600 trauma patients were selected from the Department of Emergency, Wuzhou Hospital affiliated to Youjiang Medical University For Nationalities and divided into different groups according to the time of arrival. 300 trauma patients who visited from April to September 2021 were set as the control group, including 211 males and 89 females, and the average age was(50.10±16.48 )(14-97) years; and 300 trauma patients who visited from October 2021 to March 2022 were set as the observation group, including 200 males and 100 females, and the average age was(50.27±17.71)(14-97) years. The control group used conventional triage methods, while the observation group used emergency pre-examination triage standards for triage, waiting, reception and disposal. The pre-examination triage time, waiting time for diagnosis and treatment, emergency response time and triage accuracy between two groups of emergency trauma patients were analyzed and compared.

The overall triage accuracy of the observation group was 96.3%, significantly higher than that of the control group (88.0%), the difference was statistically significant (P<0.01). The pre-treatment triage time for acute trauma in the observation group was gradeⅠ(3.18 minutes), gradeⅡ(3.22 minutes), gradeⅢ(3.35 minutes), and gradeⅣ(3.72 minutes); treatment waiting time was gradeⅠ(4.00 minutes), gradeⅡ(6.15 minutes), gradeⅢ(11.62 minutes), and gradeⅣ(12.76 minutes); emergency response time was gradeⅠ(2.09 minutes), gradeⅡ(3.59 minutes), gradeⅢ(10.38 minutes), and grade Ⅳ(12.28 minutes); all of which were less than the pre-treatment triage time in the control group, which was gradeⅠ(4.07 minutes), gradeⅡ(4.20 minutes), gradeⅢ(3.93 minutes), and gradeⅣ(3.80 minutes); treatment waiting time was gradeⅠ(4.79 minutes). The difference in emergency response time was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Rapid and accurate triage based on the standard of emergency pre-examination is crucial to ensure that acute trauma patients receive emergency treatment in time.