PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16305321

Physician knowledge of the Glasgow Coma Scale.

Abstract

Appropriate triage is critical to optimizing outcome from battle related injuries. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the primary means by which combat casualties, who have suffered head injury, are triaged. For the GCS to be reliable in this critical role, it must be applied accurately. To determine the level of knowledge of the GCS among military physicians with exposure and/or training in the scale we administered a prospective, voluntary, and anonymous survey to physicians of all levels of training at military medical centers with significant patient referral base. The main outcome measures were correct identification of title and categories of the GCS along with appropriate scoring of each category. Overall performance on the survey was marginal. Many were able to identify what "GCS" stands for, but far fewer were able to identify the titles of the specific categories, let alone identify the specific scoring of each category. When evaluated based on medical specialties, those in surgical specialties outperformed those in the medical specialties. When comparing the different levels of training, residents and fellows performed better than attending staff or interns. Finally, those with Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) certification performed significantly better than those without the training. Physician knowledge of the GCS, as demonstrated in this study, is poor, even in a population of individuals with specific training in the use of the scale. It is concluded that, to optimize outcome from combat related head injury, methods for improving accurate quantitation of neurologic state need to be explored.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ronald G Riechers, Anthony Ramage, William Brown, Audrey Kalehua, Peter Rhee, James M Ecklund, Geoffrey S F Ling. 2005. Physician knowledge of the Glasgow Coma Scale.. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2005.22.1327

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗