Objective To observe the effects of using problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) in clinical teaching in emergency intensive care unit (EICU).Methods Three hundred and twelve 5-year clinical medicine undergraduates from Xinjiang Medical University including 108 students in 2007 class and 204 students in 2008 class were enrolled. The students in each class were randomly divided into two groups, 54 students in each group in 2007 class and 102 students in each group in 2008 class. Randomized controlled trial was conducted; in the first half of a semester, the students in the two groups of each class were taught by PBL method and LBL method respectively. At the middle of the semester, written examination (WES), objective structure clinical examinations (OSCE) and self assessment questionnaire test were carried out to evaluate students' learning effect. In the second half of the semester, the teaching method in the two groups of each class was exchanged, and at the end of the semester, the same examinations were carried out, and the examination and questionnaire scores in the two groups of each class were compared.Results The results of comparisons of the WES and OSCE scores between two modes in each class showed that the scores of WES and OSCE of the PBL mode were obviously higher than those in the LBL mode (the first half of semester in 2007 class: WES: 23.20±3.33 vs. 22.78±4.41, OSCE: 27.60±6.44 vs. 25.45±6.35, in 2008 class: WES: 24.45±2.65 vs. 23.02±3.67, OSCE: 29.53±4.67 vs. 27.57±6.83, in the second half of the semester in 2007 class: WES: 24.60±3.67 vs. 23.46±2.57, OSCE: 28.50±4.78 vs. 28.01±5.78, in 2008 class: WES: 23.54±3.56 vs. 22.56±6.89, OSCE: 28.08±2.15 vs. 27.43±7.23,P < 0.05 orP < 0.01). The score results of self assessment questionnaires of students in two groups of 2007 class and 2008 class showed that the self learning ability, initiative, linking theory with practice, team power and attentiveness were significantly higher in the PBL teaching mode than those in the LBL teaching mode [the first half of the semester in 2007 class: self learning ability (score): 4.20±0.67 vs. 3.32±0.71, the initiative (score): 4.15±0.98 vs. 2.01±0.81, linking theory with practice (score): 4.09±0.65 vs. 3.52±0.89, team power (score): 4.43±0.56 vs. 3.08±0.43, attentiveness (score): 4.25±0.77 vs. 2.98±0.67; the second half of the semester in 2007 class: self learning ability (score): 4.23±0.77 vs. 2.11±0.98, the initiative (score): 4.59±0.85 vs. 3.20±0.73, linking theory with practice (score): 4.23±0.71 vs. 2.88±0.87, team power (score): 4.66±0.63 vs. 2.21±0.64, attentiveness (score): 4.21±0.73 vs. 2.28±0.43; the first half of the semester in 2008 class: self learning ability (score): 7.60±0.64 vs. 5.62±0.41, the initiative (score): 7.23±0.47 vs. 5.07±0.51, linking theory with practice (score): 7.04±0.67 vs. 4.56±0.59, team power (score): 7.33±0.55 vs. 5.06±0.47, attentiveness (score): 6.21±0.87 vs. 4.88±0.37; the second half of the semester in 2008 class: self learning ability (score): 7.03±0.71 vs. 5.11±0.48, the initiative (score): 7.89±0.57 vs. 5.20±0.33, linking theory with practice (score): 7.63±0.25 vs. 4.88±0.57, team power (score): 7.64±0.33 vs. 5.21±0.67, attentiveness (score): 7.01±0.89 vs. 6.01±0.90].Conclusion PBL method of teaching is worthwhile to be explored and spread extensively, especially in medicine, a scientific course involving much attention on practice, it embodies more importance.

Objective To access the effectiveness of modified early warning score (MEWS) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) in predicting the degree of injury and outcome for emergently admitted polytrauma patients.Methods In this single-center prospective study,266 polytrauma patients hospitalized from June 2012 to January 2013 were enrolled.MEWS and APACHE Ⅱ score were collected and compared for the rate of ICU admission,high dependency unit admission,outpatient therapy,death,and discharge within 30 days.Diagnostic and predictive performance of MEWS and APACHE Ⅱ were assessed by the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC).Results A higher values in MEWS and APACHE Ⅱ were linked to much severe injury,increased likelihood of admission to the ICU or high dependency unit and high mortality.Patients with MEWS value ≥5 had increased risk of death as compared with those with MEWS value ＜ 5 (x2 =90.749,P ＜0.01).MEWS =5,for injury severity evaluation,showed a sensitivity of 85.7％ and specificity of 84.8％.MEWS value≥5 predicted ICU admission with a sensitivity of 80.0％ and specificity of 91.1％ and high dependency unit admission with a sensitivity of 67.9％ and specificity of 79.9％.APACHE Ⅱ score ≥ 21 was associated with increased rate of death,with significant difference from that among patients with APACHE Ⅱ score ＜ 21 (x2 =73.518,P ＜ 0.01).APACHE Ⅱ score =21,for injury severity evaluation,showed a sensitivity of 90.5％ and specificity of 79.5％.APACHE Ⅱ score ≥ 21 predicted ICU admission with a sensitivity of 95.0％ and specificity of 73.6％ and high dependency unit admission with a sensitivity of 88.2％ and specificity of 72.8％.In prediction of prognosis,ICU admission and high dependency unit admission,area under the ROC curve with 95％ CI for NEWS was 0.889 (0.830-0.948),0.937 (0.900-0.975) and 0.946 (0.916-0.977) respectively and for APACHE Ⅱ was 0.939 (0.898-0.979),0.761 (0.677-0.845) and 0.832 (0.782-0.883) respectively.MEWS and APACHE Ⅱ score in death group were (6.4 ± 2.7) points and (29.9 ± 6.4) points,but lowered to (3.0 ± 1.5) points and (16.8 ± 5.7) points respectively in survival group (P ＜ 0.01).Conclusions Both APACHE Ⅱ and MEWS have the ability to discriminate the severity of polytrauma patients and identify the potential of seriously ill patients.MEWS is more suitable for early identification of critically ill trauma patient due to its easy and quick operation as well as low cost,while APACHE Ⅱ is more suitable for evaluation of emergency observing patients and ICU patients.