%0期刊文章%@ 1438- 8871% I JMIR出版物%V 23卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析% N 12% P e25899% T在门诊护士电话分诊和电子就诊中使用McIsaac评分预测A组链球菌咽炎与亲自就诊的比较:回顾性观察研究%A Pecina,Jennifer L %A Nigon,Leah M %A Penza,Kristine S %A Murray,Martha A %A Kronebusch,Beckie J %A Miller,Nathaniel E %A Jensen,Teresa B %+梅奥诊所家庭医学系，美国明尼苏达州罗切斯特市第一街西南200号，1 507 284 2511，pecina.jennifer@mayo.edu %K链球菌性咽炎%K电子访问%K电子访问%K远程医疗%K远程%K虚拟访问%K McIssac评分%K护士电话分诊%K评分系统%K咽痛%K组A链球菌%K远程保健%K护士%K电话%K分诊%D 2021 %7 20.12.2021 %9原始论文%J J医学互联网Res %G英语%X背景:McIsaac标准是一个经过验证的评分系统，用于确定急性咽喉痛由a组链球菌(GAS)引起的可能性，以对需要进行链球菌检测的患者进行分层。目的:我们的目的是比较在面对面(f2f)和非f2f相遇中获得的McIsaac标准。方法:本回顾性研究比较了McIsaac评分的GAS阳性检测百分比与护士协议电话会面、电子访问(电子访问)和亲自f2f门诊访问时计算的分数。结果:对于任何McIsaac评分，在遭遇类型之间的链球菌测试阳性百分比没有差异。与f2f访问相比，有更多的电话和电子访问遇到任何缺失的评分组件。对于个别评分组成部分，与电话咨询和f2f咨询相比，电子咨询遗漏发烧和咳嗽信息的情况明显较少。与电话和电子会诊相比，F2f会诊缺失扁桃体和淋巴结病描述的可能性显著降低。 McIsaac scores of 4 had positive GAS rates of 55% to 68% across encounter types. There were 4 encounters not missing any score components with a McIsaac score of 0. None of these 4 encounters had a positive GAS test. Conclusions: McIsaac scores of 4 collected during non-f2f care could be used to consider empiric treatment for GAS without testing if significant barriers to testing exist such as the COVID-19 pandemic or geographic barriers. Future studies should evaluate further whether non-f2f encounters with McIsaac scores of 0 can be safely excluded from GAS testing. %M 34932016 %R 10.2196/25899 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2021/12/e25899 %U https://doi.org/10.2196/25899 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34932016