الفهرس 
List of ContentOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 207 |  |  |
| | | from | 207 | | |
Abstract
Dissertation Abstract : Background : Trauma is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality all over the world. Effective initial assessment and early intervention in trauma patients is substantial for early detection and treatment of immediately life-threatening conditions. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most commonly used tool for assessing the consciousness and prognosis of traumatic patients. The Full Outline of Unresponsiveness (FOUR) score is a new scale developed to overcome the GCS limitations. Aim: This study aimed to compare between the GCS and the FOUR score in prediction of trauma patients’ outcome in intensive care units. Method: The study had a descriptive comparative research design with a convenience sample of 112 adult critically ill patients with any type of trauma from three intensive care units at Mansoura University Emergency Hospital in Egypt. Four tools were used to collect data; health profile assessment tool, the GCS, the FOUR score, and the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in both scales area under the curves (p=0.3856) and the agreement was strong (Kappa = 0.840, p<0.001). A score of ≤ 8 for the GCS was more sensitive than the FOUR score with sensitivity of 97% and 91% respectively. Conversely, the FOUR score was more specific than the GCS with specificity of 80% and 68% respectively. Conclusion and Recommendations: The FOUR score is as effective as but not superior to the GCS in predicting trauma patients’ outcomes. Hence, both scores can be used for better prediction of outcomes. Therefore, the critical care nurses should be trained for using the FOUR score items to be used in intensive care units as a routine tool for assessing patients’ level of consciousness.