Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T00:36:07.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Révision de la liste de raisons de consultation du Système canadien d’information de gestion des départements d’urgence (SIGDU), version 1.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Eric Grafstein ,
Michael J. Bullard ,
David Warren ,
Bernard Unger  and
le groupe de travail national sur l’ÉTG
Eric Grafstein*
Affiliation:
De l'hôpital St. Paul's et de l'Université de la Colombie-Britannique, Vancouver (C.-B.)
Michael J. Bullard
Affiliation:
de l'Hôpital de l'Université de l'Alberta et l'Université de l'Alberta, Edmonton (Alb.)
David Warren
Affiliation:
de l'Hôpital pour enfants, centre des sciences de la santé de London, Université Western Ontario, London (Ont.)
Bernard Unger
Affiliation:
de l'Hôpital général juif–S.M.B.D., Université McGill, Montréal (Québec)
le groupe de travail national sur l’ÉTG
Affiliation:
comprend des représentants de l'Association canadienne des médecins d'urgence (ACMU), de l'Affiliation nationale des infirmières et infirmiers d'urgence (ANIIU), de l'Association des médecins d'urgence du Québec (AMUQ), de la Société canadienne de pédiatrie (SCP) et de la Société de la médecine rurale du Canada (SMRC)
*
de médecine d'urgence, Université de la Colombie-Britannique, département de médecine d’urgence, hôpital St. Paul's, 1081, rue Burrard, Vancouver BC V6Z 1Y6; egrafstein@providencehealth.bc.ca

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

raison de consultationsystème d’information de gestion des départements d’urgenceÉTG
Type
Mise à jour de l'ACMU • CAEP Update
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , March 2008 , pp. 162 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2008

References

Références

1.Grafstein, E, Unger, B, Bullard, M, et al. Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDrosoph Inf Serv) Presenting Complaint List (Version 1.0). CJEM 2003;5:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Beitel, AJ, Olson, KL, Reis, BY, et al. Use of emergency department chief complaint and diagnostic codes for identifying respiratory illness in a paediatric population. Pediatr Emerg Care 2004;20:355–60.Google Scholar
3.Terry, W, Ostrowsky, B, Huang, A. Should we be worried? Investigation for signals generated by an electronic syndromic surveillance system — Westchester County, New York. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004;53(Supp):190–5.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Mikosz, CA, Silva, J, Black, S, et al. Comparison of two major emergency department-based free-text chief complaint coding systems. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004;53(Suppl):101–5.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Irvin, CB, Nouhan, PP, Rice, K. Syndromic analysis of computerized emergency department patients’ chief complaints: an opportunity for bioterrorism and influenza surveillance. Ann Emerg Med 2003;41:447–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Murray, M, Bullard, M, Grafstein, E. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale implementation guidelines. CJEM 2004;6:421–7.Google Scholar
7.Gouin, S, Gravel, J, Amre, DK, et al. Evaluation of the Paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in a pediatric ED. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23:243–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Gravel, J, Gouin, S, Bailey, B, et al. Evaluation of the validity of a computerized version of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in a paediatric emergency department [résumé]. CJEM 2007;9:183.Google Scholar
9.Grafstein, E, Innes, G, Westman, J, et al. Inter-rater reliability of a computerized presenting-complaint-linked triage system in an urban emergency department. CJEM 2003;5:323–9.Google Scholar
10.Aronsky, D, Kendall, D, Merkley, K, et al. A comprehensive set of coded chief complaints for the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:980–9.Google Scholar
11.Gorelick, MH, Alpern, ER, Alessandrini, EA. A system for grouping presenting complaints: the paediatric emergency reason for visit cluster. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:723–31.Google Scholar
12.Chapman, WW, Dowling, JN, Wagner, MM. Classification of emergency department chief complaints into 7 syndromes: a retrospective analysis of 527,228 patients. Ann Emerg Med 2005;46:445–55.Google Scholar
13.Travers, DA, Haas, SW. Evaluation of emergency medical text processor, a system for cleaning chief complaint text data. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11:1170–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Thompson, DA, Eitel, D, Fernandes, CMB, et al. Coded chief complaints — automated analysis of free-text complaints. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:774–82.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Institut canadien d’information sur la santé. Système national d’information sur les soins ambulatoires (SNISA). Disponible sur : http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=services_nacrs_f (Consulté le 20 janvier 2008).Google Scholar
16.Bullard, MJ, Unger, B, Spence, J, et al. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) adult guidlines. CJEM 2008;10:136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar