請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/43818完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 馬惠明(Huei-Ming Ma) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Cheng-Yi Li | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李政宜 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T02:29:33Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2009-09-16 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2009-09-16 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2009-08-16 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1.Lopez, A.D. and C.C. Murray, The global burden of disease, 1990-2020. Nat Med, 1998. 4(11): p. 1241-3.
2.The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. 2008 [cited; Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf. 3.Peden M, S.R., Sleet D, et al. World report on road traffic injury prevention. 2004 [cited; Available from: http://www.who.int/entity/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/summary_en_rev.pdf. 4.Haddon, W., Jr., The changing approach to the epidemiology, prevention, and amelioration of trauma: the transition to approaches etiologically rather than descriptively based. 1968. Inj Prev, 1999. 5(3): p. 231-5. 5.Chiu, W.T., et al., The impact of time, legislation, and geography on the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury. J Clin Neurosci, 2007. 14(10): p. 930-5. 6.Celso, B., et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcome of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers following the establishment of trauma systems. J Trauma, 2006. 60(2): p. 371-8; discussion 378. 7.Cooper, D.J., et al., Quality assessment of the management of road traffic fatalities at a level I trauma center compared with other hospitals in Victoria, Australia. Consultative Committee on Road Traffic Fatalities in Victoria. J Trauma, 1998. 45(4): p. 772-9. 8.Demetriades, D., et al., The effect of trauma center designation and trauma volume on outcome in specific severe injuries. Ann Surg, 2005. 242(4): p. 512-7; discussion 517-9. 9.MacKenzie, E.J., et al., A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med, 2006. 354(4): p. 366-78. 10.Scarborough, K., et al., Reduced mortality at a community hospital trauma center: the impact of changing trauma level designation From II to I. Arch Surg, 2008. 143(1): p. 22-7; discussion 27-8. 11.MacKenzie, E.J., et al., National inventory of hospital trauma centers. JAMA, 2003. 289(12): p. 1515-22. 12.London, J.A. and F.D. Battistella, Is there a relationship between trauma center volume and mortality? J Trauma, 2003. 54(1): p. 16-24; discussion 24-5. 13.Gardner, R., et al., Factors associated with hospital length of stay and hospital charges of motor vehicle crash related hospitalizations among children in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2007. 161(9): p. 889-95. 14.McConnell, K.J., et al., Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for head-injured patients. Health Serv Res, 2005. 40(2): p. 435-57. 15.Demetriades, D., et al., Relationship between American College of Surgeons trauma center designation and mortality in patients with severe trauma (injury severity score > 15). J Am Coll Surg, 2006. 202(2): p. 212-5; quiz A45. 16.Papa, L., et al., Assessing effectiveness of a mature trauma system: Association of trauma center presence with lower injury mortality rate. J Trauma, 2006. 61(2): p. 261-6; discussion 266-7. 17.Helling, T.S., et al., Treatment of liver injuries at level I and level II centers in a multi-institutional metropolitan trauma system. The Midwest Trauma Society Liver Trauma Study Group. J Trauma, 1997. 42(6): p. 1091-6. 18.Clancy, T.V., et al., A statewide analysis of level I and II trauma centers for patients with major injuries. J Trauma, 2001. 51(2): p. 346-51. 19.Pasquale, M.D., et al., Outcome analysis of Pennsylvania trauma centers: factors predictive of nonsurvival in seriously injured patients. J Trauma, 2001. 50(3): p. 465-72; discussion 473-4. 20.Harbrecht, B.G., et al., Management of adult blunt splenic injuries: comparison between level I and level II trauma centers. J Am Coll Surg, 2004. 198(2): p. 232-9. 21.特約醫事服務機構家數－按分局縣市及特約類別分. 2003 [cited; Available from: http://www.nhi.gov.tw/webdata/AttachFiles/Attach_6023_1_92-T30.pdf. 22.MacKenzie, E.J., Injury severity scales: overview and directions for future research. Am J Emerg Med, 1984. 2(6): p. 537-49. 23.Baker, S.P., et al., The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma, 1974. 14(3): p. 187-96. 24.MacKenzie, E.J., D.M. Steinwachs, and B. Shankar, Classifying trauma severity based on hospital discharge diagnoses. Validation of an ICD-9CM to AIS-85 conversion table. Med Care, 1989. 27(4): p. 412-22. 25.Abdel-Aty, M.A., C.L. Chen, and J.R. Schott, An assessment of the effect of driver age on traffic accident involvement using log-linear models. Accid Anal Prev, 1998. 30(6): p. 851-61. 26.Bedard, M., et al., The independent contribution of driver, crash, and vehicle characteristics to driver fatalities. Accid Anal Prev, 2002. 34(6): p. 717-27. 27.Valent, F., et al., Risk factors for fatal road traffic accidents in Udine, Italy. Accid Anal Prev, 2002. 34(1): p. 71-84. 28.Singleton, M., H. Qin, and J. Luan, Factors associated with higher levels of injury severity in occupants of motor vehicles that were severely damaged in traffic crashes in Kentucky, 2000-2001. Traffic Inj Prev, 2004. 5(2): p. 144-50. 29.Huang, H., H.C. Chin, and M.M. Haque, Severity of driver injury and vehicle damage in traffic crashes at intersections: a Bayesian hierarchical analysis. Accid Anal Prev, 2008. 40(1): p. 45-54. 30.Kim, K., et al., Personal and behavioral predictors of automobile crash and injury severity. Accid Anal Prev, 1995. 27(4): p. 469-81. 31.Yau, K.K., Risk factors affecting the severity of single vehicle traffic accidents in Hong Kong. Accid Anal Prev, 2004. 36(3): p. 333-40. 32.Boufous, S., et al., The impact of environmental, vehicle and driver characteristics on injury severity in older drivers hospitalized as a result of a traffic crash. J Safety Res, 2008. 39(1): p. 65-72. 33.Zhang, J., et al., Factors affecting the severity of motor vehicle traffic crashes involving elderly drivers in Ontario. Accid Anal Prev, 2000. 32(1): p. 117-25. 34.Chang, L.Y. and H.W. Wang, Analysis of traffic injury severity: an application of non-parametric classification tree techniques. Accid Anal Prev, 2006. 38(5): p. 1019-27. 35.Zambon, F. and M. Hasselberg, Factors affecting the severity of injuries among young motorcyclists--a Swedish nationwide cohort study. Traffic Inj Prev, 2006. 7(2): p. 143-9. 36.McGuffie, A.C., et al., Scottish urban versus rural trauma outcome study. J Trauma, 2005. 59(3): p. 632-8. 37.Gonzalez, R.P., et al., Increased mortality in rural vehicular trauma: identifying contributing factors through data linkage. J Trauma, 2006. 61(2): p. 404-9. 38.Al-Ghamdi, A.S., Using logistic regression to estimate the influence of accident factors on accident severity. Accid Anal Prev, 2002. 34(6): p. 729-41. 39.Eisenberg, D., The mixed effects of precipitation on traffic crashes. Accid Anal Prev, 2004. 36(4): p. 637-47. 40.Committee on Trauma and Committee on Shock, D.o.M.S., National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society. 1966, Washington, DC: National Academic of Sciences, National Research Council. 41.Mullins, R.J. and N.C. Mann, Population-based research assessing the effectiveness of trauma systems. J Trauma, 1999. 47(3 Suppl): p. S59-66. 42.Ma, M.H., et al., Compliance with prehospital triage protocols for major trauma patients. J Trauma, 1999. 46(1): p. 168-75. 43.Chang, D.C., et al., Undertriage of elderly trauma patients to state-designated trauma centers. Arch Surg, 2008. 143(8): p. 776-81. 44.Poltavski, D. and K. Muus, Factors associated with incidence of 'inappropriate' ambulance transport in rural areas in cases of moderate to severe head injury in children. J Rural Health, 2005. 21(3): p. 272-7. 45.鄭銘章, 董., 陳菀蕙, 蔡欣玲, 丘政民, 黃維信, 林豐福, 張開國, 賴靜慧, 道路交通事故相關整合系統雛形建置研究(II)-資料與系統擴充(1/2). 2005, 台北: 交通部運輸研究所. 46.鄭銘章、董基良、蔡欣玲、黃維信、林豐福、張開國、賴靜慧, 道路交通事故相關資料整合系統雛形建置研究（Ⅰ）基本雛形環境之建置. 2004, 台北: 交通部運輸研究所. 47.MacKenzie, E.J., D.M. Steinwachs, and A.I. Ramzy, Evaluating performance of statewide regionalized systems of trauma care. J Trauma, 1990. 30(6): p. 681-8. 48.馬惠明, 柯., 林志豪, 江文莒, 溫在弘, 陳奕婷, 吳淯芸, 台灣地區跨區域緊急醫療救護體系之建置規劃. 2008, 社團法人台灣急診醫學會: 台北. p. 218. 49.林奇霆, 以全民健保2004-2005年承保抽樣歸人檔分析道路交通事故住院患者之醫療利用情形及其相關因素, in 醫療機構管理研究所. 2008, 台灣大學: 台北. p. 115. 50.MacKenzie, E.J., J.A. Morris, Jr., and S.L. Edelstein, Effect of pre-existing disease on length of hospital stay in trauma patients. J Trauma, 1989. 29(6): p. 757-64; discussion 764-5. 51.Morris, J.A., Jr., et al., Mortality in trauma patients: the interaction between host factors and severity. J Trauma, 1990. 30(12): p. 1476-82. 52.Morris, J.A., Jr., E.J. MacKenzie, and S.L. Edelstein, The effect of preexisting conditions on mortality in trauma patients. JAMA, 1990. 263(14): p. 1942-6. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/43818 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 交通事故傷害往往對國家社會、經濟和醫療造成重大的負擔，其死亡率位居全球死亡率第九名，造成全球的經濟負擔約為五億一千八百萬美金。近年來，台灣意外事故死亡率居十大死亡中的第五名，其中交通事故的比例最高，約佔了一半，可見交通事故的影響之大。
本研究連結警政署交通事故資料庫、健保資料庫及死因資料庫，分析民國92年台灣中部地區的交通事故，探討1)交通事故嚴重度的影響因素；2)不同嚴重度創傷病患的整體創傷表現；3)創傷病患在不同醫療層級院所接受治療，其住院天數以及30天死亡率的差異;4)交通事故在城鄉之間，現場死亡、整體檢傷表現、住院天數和30天死亡率的差異。 研究結果顯示，影響事故嚴重度的因素中，關於人的因素部份，影響因素包括：年齡（30-65歲；大於65歲）、無照駕駛、酒後駕車；車輛因素部份包括：騎乘機車、未使用安全帶或安全帽、車輛撞擊路邊固定物；地理及環境因素部份包括：夜間行車、行駛於速限較高的道路（50-80km/h；大於80km/h）、發生於彰化縣、非十字路口以及號誌功能不良處的事故。 中部地區檢傷整體表現，以醫學中心和非醫學中心為分類標準，敏感度為30.61％，特異度為77.04％。檢傷過度在各縣市之間的比較為：台中市＞彰化縣＞南投縣＞台中縣；檢傷不足在各縣市之間的比較為：台中縣＞南投縣＞彰化縣、台中市。以區域及以上醫院和地區醫院為分類標準，敏感度為83.45％，特異度為28.52％。檢傷過度在各縣市之間的比較為：台中市＞台中縣＞彰化縣＞南投縣；檢傷不足在各縣市之間的比較為：南投縣＞台中縣＞彰化縣＞台中市。 醫院層級在醫療照護的比較中顯示，住院天數為醫學中心住院天數高於區域醫院，區域醫院高於地區醫院。其他影響住院天數的因素包括：是否死亡、嚴重度、性別、年齡、駕照有無、事故發生縣市、事故車輛、事故發生時間、道路速限及是否跨縣市住院等。30天死亡率為醫學中心和區域醫院無顯著差異，但地區醫院30天死亡率低於醫學中心及區域醫院。其他影響30天死亡率的因素包括事故發生地點、性別及是否酒駕。 城鄉差距的比較，在事故現場死亡部份，鄉村現場死亡比例高於城市。整體檢傷表現中，無論以醫學中心或是區域級以上醫院為分類標準，敏感度表現為城市＞鄉村，特異度表現為鄉村＞城市。住院天數比較在城鄉之間無顯著差異，而30天死亡率則是鄉村高於城市。 預防勝於治療，若能減少本研究結果中造成嚴重事故的因素，相信能減少嚴重交通事故的發生，也能夠降低生命財產的損失。中部地區的檢傷表現並不理想，各縣市之間的檢傷表現差異性也大，此有賴進一步改善醫療制度，包括院前救護，以及創傷醫療制度。本研究對於創傷病患的醫療照護表現分析結果，與國外研究結果有所不同，可能和本研究無法得到病患臨床生理指標、合併症等因素有關，此有待更完善資料收集與研究。 城鄉在創傷的比較上，的確存在著差異，降低城鄉間的創傷醫療差異，仍有賴國人進一步努力。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Road traffic injury is a heavy burden to a country’s society, economy and health. It was the 9th leading cause of global death and the costs is estimated to be 518 billion US dollar per year. The unintended injury death has been the 5th leading cause in Taiwan in recent years. The road traffic injuries play the key part within it. By linking the National Traffic Accident Investigation Reports（police database）, the Bureau of National Health Insurance database, and the death registration database in central Taiwan, this study was aimed :1) to analyze factors associated with injury severity; 2) to assess the overall triage performance; 3) to compare the differences in length of stay and mortality of trauma patients treated in different levels of hospitals and 4) to compare the rural and urban differences in trauma and medical care.
Human factors associated with severe injuries included age older than 30 years old (30-65 years old, >65 years old), alcohol consumption, drive without license. Risk factors for severe injuries in vehicle factors included helmet/set-belt non-use, motorcycle in comparison to car, collision with a fixed object. Environment factors associated with severe injuries were drive at night, higher speed limit (50-80km/h, >80 km/h), non-intersection, signal without proper function and Chang-hau county (in comparison to Tai-chung city). Triage performance was determined by sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity was defined as the percentage of major patients treated at medical centers, and specificity was defined as the percentage of non-major trauma patients treated at non-center hospitals. For central Taiwan, the overall sensitivity was 30.61% and the specificity was 77.04%. The overtriage performance was highest for Tai-chung city, followed by Chang-hua county and Nan-tou county, and lowest for Tai-chung county. The undertriage performance was highest for Tai-chung county, followed by Nan-tou county and Chang-hua county, and lowest for Tai-chung city. There was no difference in undertriage rates between Chang-hua county and Tai-chung city. When triage performance was evaluated against regional hospital and higher vs. district hospital, the sensitivity was 83.45% and the specificity was 28.52%. The overtriage performance was highest for Tai-chung city, followed by Chang-hua county and Nan-tou county, and lowest for Tai-chung county. The undertriage performance was highest for Nan-tou county, followed by Tai-chung county and Chang-hua county and lowest among Taichung city. The length of stay was longest for medical center, followed by regional hospital, and district hospital. Other factors affecting length of stay included fatality, severity, sex, age, license, county, vehicle type, night, speed limit and crossing county hospitalization. Thirty-day mortality was higher in medical center and regional hospital than in district hospital. Factors such as rural/urban, sex and alcohol consumption also affected 30-day mortality. There were significant different between rural and urban events with regards to the number of death on scene, the overall triage performance and the 30-day mortality Compared to urban events, rural events had higher number of death on scene, and higher 30-day mortality, lower sensitivity, and high specificity There was no difference in length of stay between rural and urban events. Prevention is better than cure. To eliminate factors associated with severe injuries might reduce the life loss. The overall triage performance in central Taiwan was suboptimal and there were gaps in triage performance between cities/counties in central Taiwan. We have to make effort in remodeling trauma care system to improve the triage performance. The length of stay was longer in medical center and the 30-day mortality was higher in medical center. These results could be due to the lack of physiological data, the existence of comorbidity and inadequate adjustment. Efforts should be made to reduce the differences between urban and rural events. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T02:29:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R96846012-1.pdf: 1257751 bytes, checksum: 60a74ee396f41ac75fb1623c5e0ed4ab (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 致謝........................................................................................................................... i
中文摘要.................................................................................................................... ii 英文摘要................................................................................................................... iv 第一章 研究動機與目的............................................................................................ 1 第一節 研究動機....................................................................................................... 1 第二節 目的.............................................................................................................. 9 第二章 文獻回顧..................................................................................................... 10 第一節 創傷指標及嚴重創傷定義............................................................................ 10 第二節 嚴重交通事故創傷相關因素......................................................................... 11 一、 人的因素......................................................................................................... 11 二、 車輛因素......................................................................................................... 11 三、 地理及環境因素.............................................................................................. 12 第三節 創傷系統..................................................................................................... 14 第四節 創傷病患後送醫療院所之整體創傷表現....................................................... 15 第五節 不同層級創傷中心比較................................................................................ 16 一、 住院天數......................................................................................................... 16 二、 死亡率............................................................................................................. 16 第六節 城鄉創傷醫療差異....................................................................................... 18 第三章 材料及方法.................................................................................................. 19 第一節 研究對象...................................................................................................... 19 第二節 資料庫簡介................................................................................................... 22 一、 警政署交通事故資料庫.................................................................................... 22 二、 全民健保資料庫............................................................................................... 22 三、 死因資料庫...................................................................................................... 22 四、 資料庫連結...................................................................................................... 22 第三節 醫院分級...................................................................................................... 23 第四節 研究架構、內容及統計方法......................................................................... 24 一、 車禍事故嚴重創傷患者定義............................................................................. 24 二、 交通事故嚴重創傷影響因素............................................................................. 26 三、 創傷病患後送之整體檢傷表現......................................................................... 26 四、 住院天數、30天死亡率之比較........................................................................ 27 五、 創傷醫療城鄉差距........................................................................................... 28 第四章 結果............................................................................................................. 29 第一節 資料庫處理.................................................................................................. 29 第二節 交通事故創傷嚴重度影響因素..................................................................... 30 一、 單變項比較...................................................................................................... 30 1. 人的因素.............................................................................................................. 30 2. 車輛因素.............................................................................................................. 30 3. 地理及環境因素.................................................................................................. 31 二、 多變項羅吉斯迴歸比較................................................................................... 31 第三節 創傷病患就醫之整體檢傷表現.................................................................... 38 一、 不含跨區住院之整體檢傷表現........................................................................ 41 二、 含跨區住院之整體檢傷表現........................................................................... 45 三、 取代第一次住院之整體檢傷表現.................................................................... 48 第四節 不同層級醫療照護之比較............................................................................ 52 一、 住院天數........................................................................................................ 56 二、 30天死亡率................................................................................................... 64 第五節 城鄉差距..................................................................................................... 66 一、 事故現場死亡差異.......................................................................................... 66 二、 整體檢傷表現差異......................................................................................... 68 三、 住院天數以及30天死亡率差異..................................................................... 70 1. 住院天數............................................................................................................ 71 2. 30天死亡率........................................................................................................ 72 第五章 討論............................................................................................................ 73 第一節 交通事故創傷嚴重度影響因素.................................................................... 73 一、 人的因素........................................................................................................ 73 二、 車輛因素........................................................................................................ 74 三、 地理及環境因素............................................................................................. 74 第二節 中部地區及各縣市整體檢傷表現................................................................ 77 第三節 不同層級醫療照護之比較........................................................................... 79 一、 住院天數........................................................................................................ 79 二、 30天死亡率................................................................................................... 81 第四節 城鄉差距..................................................................................................... 82 一、 事故現場死亡率.............................................................................................. 82 二、 整體檢傷表現.................................................................................................. 82 三、 住院天數......................................................................................................... 82 四、 30天死亡率.................................................................................................... 83 第五節 限制............................................................................................................. 84 第六章 結論............................................................................................................. 85 參考文獻................................................................................................................... 87 附錄一 道路交通事故資料格式................................................................................. 90 附錄二 住院醫療費用清單明細檔............................................................................. 92 附錄三 死因資料格式............................................................................................... 94 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 城鄉差異 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 整體檢傷表現 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 交通事故嚴重度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 死亡率 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 住院天數 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | rural and urban | en |
| dc.subject | road traffic injury | en |
| dc.subject | traffic injury severity | en |
| dc.subject | overall triage performance | en |
| dc.subject | length of stay | en |
| dc.subject | mortality | en |
| dc.title | 交通事故創傷病患之嚴重度影響因素、創傷整體表現以及醫療照護之相關研究－以中部地區為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Factors Associated with Injury Severity, Overall Triage Performance, and Medical Care among Victims of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Central Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳石池(Shyr-Chyr Chen),黃維信(Wei-Shin Huang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 交通事故嚴重度,整體檢傷表現,住院天數,死亡率,城鄉差異, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | road traffic injury,traffic injury severity,overall triage performance,length of stay,mortality,rural and urban, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 94 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2009-08-17 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 預防醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 流行病學與預防醫學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-97-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.23 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。