摘 要本研究旨在瞭解台灣地區國民小學校園緊急傷病處理現況及其相關影響因素。研究工具為自擬之結構式問卷，研究對象是八十九學年度台灣地區公私立國民小學。總計發出問卷360份，收回有效問卷309份，回收率為86.6﹪。研究結果主要發現如下：目前台灣地區校園緊急傷病事前規劃措施的實施缺乏整體性和協調性；大部分學校在學生發生緊急傷病時，有聯絡不到家長的現象；只有三成學校完成緊急傷病處理組織運作及程序擬訂；學校健康中心處理緊急傷病的人力支援、通訊廣播及緊急照護設備不足；雖有七成學校進行傷病處理紀錄卻只有不到兩成學校能善加應用；各校辦理一般急救訓練課程內容不一、時數及次數不足，參加人員不能普及，經費支援不足，預期成效有限；有八成學校以校護為緊急傷病處理工作主要執行人員，其接受專業急救訓練的時數不足，亟待加強；學校對學生參加保險情形疏於關注；校護差假期間只有二成學校能指定特定職務代理人實質代理其職務。校園急症以發燒、腹痛最多；受傷以裂傷、骨折最多。傷病處理人員以校護和級任老師為主。只有一成的學校在事前規劃整體周延性上屬於良級，而有四成學校在緊急傷病處理表現較佳。校園緊急傷病處理事前規劃措施越週延，事發後處置表現越好，其中「組織運作」、「程序擬訂」、「支援聯絡網建置」、「急救訓練」、「職務代理人安排」等與事發後處置關係密切，而這五項措施又受到「學校所在地」、「工作主要執行人員職稱」及「其最近一次接受急救訓練時間間隔」的影響。因此建議，教育單位應加強建立校內緊急救護系統，制定相關法令，落實事前規劃措施，加強評鑑考核；建議提高急救訓練的質與量，尤其是校護的緊急救護知能訓練；建立長期監測指標，整合學校附近醫療資源，發展符合各校特色之緊急傷病救護系統。 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to find out the current practice of the management of the school injuries and sickness in the campus of primary schools around the Taiwan area as well as its relevant influences and factors. In order to do this, a structural questionnaire was created as a tool for the study. Targets for the study were the public and private primary schools of the 2000th academic year around the Taiwan area. Three hundred and sixty copies were issued in total; 309 effective ones were retrieved, with a successful retrieving rate of 86.6%. The main findings of the study are the following： The implementing of the measures for emergency preparedness in the campus around Taiwan lacked coordination and consistency. Most schools had trouble of contacting the parents at the critical moment of an emergency when a student is injured or sick. Only thirty percent of the schools had set up school emergency care committee and written emergency care procedures. The health centers of the schools were insufficient in man power, communication and broadcasting systems, as well as emergency care equipment. Although seventy-percent schools kept injuries and sickness records., less than twenty percent of them have really made good use of them. These schools set up emergency training programs with different designings. They had no enough training hours and the needed attendance frequency. Chances of taking part in these programs were not available to all, and financial supports were inadequate. Consequently, one can hardly expect any good results from them. About eighty percent schools appointed their school nurses as the main agent for taking care of these unintentional injuries and sickness. As these nurses had no enough training hours for handling these, much needs to be done to them yet. And schools paid little attention to students’ insurance for their attendance hours. When school nurses ask for leave, only twenty percent of them have appointed proxies to take care of their duties for them. Fever and abdomen pains occurred the most among all the emergent sickness in campus, while laceration and fractures were the main causes of injuries. Most sicknesses and injuries were taken care of by teachers and school nurses. Only one tenth of the schools could be evaluated as good in their emergency care plans, and forty percent of them treated these emergencies acceptably. Schools with better planning and measures for emergency cares performed the better at the occurrence of emergencies. Among them, emergency care committee, written emergency care procedures, the establishment of supporting and connecting network, first aid training, and duty proxy system were all very consequential to the efficient management of the emergencies at the first time. However, these five measures were also highly influenced by the location of the school, the title of the job’s main performers, and the time span lagging for receiving the latest first-aid training. Therefore, it is suggested that the authorities give more stress on the setting up of the campus emergency care systems, compile the concerning laws and regulations, execute down-to-earth plans and procedures that should have set up beforehand, and give more critical evaluations and appraisals for each schools’ concerning performance. It is also recommended to improve the quality and quantity of first-aid training, especially school nurses’ cognitive and competence training for emergencies. Moreover, setting up long-term surveillance indicators, coordinating the medical care resources nearby, and developing emergency care system fit for the characteristics of each school would all be very helpful.

The purpose of this study was to find out the current practice of the
management of the school injuries and sickness in the campus of primary
schools around the Taiwan area as well as its relevant influences and
factors.　In order to do this, a structural questionnaire was created as a
tool for the study.　Targets for the study were the public and private primary
schools of the 2000th academic year around the Taiwan area.　Three hundred and
sixty copies were issued in total; 309 effective ones were retrieved, with a
successful retrieving rate of 86.6%.
The main findings of the study are the following：
The implementing of the measures for emergency preparedness in the campus
around Taiwan lacked coordination and consistency. Most schools had trouble of
contacting the parents at the critical moment of an emergency when a student
is injured or sick.　Only thirty percent of the schools had set up school
emergency care committee and written emergency care procedures.　The health
centers of the schools were insufficient in man power, communication and
broadcasting systems, as well as emergency care equipment.　Although seventy-
percent schools kept injuries and sickness records., less than twenty percent
of them have really made good use of them.
These schools set up emergency training programs with different designings.　
They had no enough training hours and the needed attendance frequency.　
Chances of taking part in these programs were not available to all, and
financial supports were inadequate.　Consequently, one can hardly expect any
good results from them.
About eighty percent schools appointed their school nurses as the main agent
for taking care of these unintentional injuries and sickness.　As these nurses
had no enough training hours for handling these, much needs to be done to them
yet.　And schools paid little attention to students’ insurance for their
attendance hours.　When school nurses ask for leave, only twenty percent of
them have appointed proxies to take care of their duties for them.
Fever and abdomen pains occurred the most among all the emergent sickness in
campus, while laceration and fractures were the main causes of injuries.　Most
sicknesses and injuries were taken care of by teachers and school nurses.　
Only one tenth of the schools could be evaluated as good in their emergency
care plans, and forty percent of them treated these emergencies acceptably.　
Schools with better planning and measures for emergency cares performed the
better at the occurrence of emergencies.　Among them, emergency care
committee, written emergency care procedures, the establishment of supporting
and connecting network, first aid training, and duty proxy system were all
very consequential to the efficient management of the emergencies at the first
time.　However, these five measures were also highly influenced by the
location of the school, the title of the job’s main performers, and the time
span lagging for receiving the latest first-aid training.
Therefore, it is suggested that the authorities give more stress on the
setting up of the campus emergency care systems, compile the concerning laws
and regulations, execute down-to-earth plans and procedures that should have
set up beforehand, and give more critical evaluations and appraisals for each
schools’ concerning performance.　It is also recommended to improve the
quality and quantity of first-aid training, especially school nurses’
cognitive and competence training for emergencies.　Moreover, setting up long-
term surveillance indicators, coordinating the medical care resources nearby,
and developing emergency care system fit for the characteristics of each
school would all be very helpful.

壹、中文部份
王國川（1997）。台灣地區青少年非致命性事故傷害之描述性流行病學研究。中等教育
，48（3），104~120。
王芝安（1999）。是誰殺了校園意外事故學童？校護成了校園緊急傷病處理系統為落實下
的代罪羔羊。校護心傳6，15。
中華民國紅十字會（2000）。中華民國紅十字會訓練規章彙編。
中華民國學校護理人員協進會（1999）。512國際護士節全國校護為學生健康安全請命記者
會專題報導（一）（二）。校護心傳，6，2-14。
中華民國學校護理人員協進會（2000）。校護實務觀點之「校園健康政策白皮書」。
中華民國學校護理人員協進會（2000）。學校護理實務工作參考手冊。
尹祚芊、楊瑞珍（1998）。全國中小學護理人力評估之研究。教育部委託研究計劃。
方禎鋒（1992）外傷病患之初期急救、評估及轉送。當代醫學19（8），665-669。
台北市教育局（1996）。教育法令彙編。
台北市教育局（1999）。學生團體保險手冊。
台北市政府主計處（2001）。台北市各機關單位預算執行要點。
　　行政院衛生署（1995）。中級救護技術員訓練教材。
行政院衛生署（1996）。公共衛生概況。
行政院衛生署（1997）。衛生白皮書。
行政院衛生署（1998）。醫療管理法規。
行政院衛生署（2000）。緊急醫療救護法暨相關規定。
朱允綺、吳文豪（1998）。E.M.S？。北市衛生。39，5-7 。
朱柔若（2000）。社會研究方法：質化與量化取向。譯自Neuman W.L.Social Research
Methods：Qualitative and Quantitative.台北：楊智
高森永、陳海燈（1999）。野戰醫院作業模式與重大災難傷患緊急救護計劃。國防醫學28
（1）。
刑泰釗（1998）。校園法律實務。台北：教育部。
呂鴻基（1998）。我國學齡兒健康水平。兒童保健雜誌，4（1），6。
宋維煌（1998）。學生校園意外傷害就診情形探討。台灣省學校體育。8（5）， 23-31。
李復惠（1993）。台灣地區公私立國民小學學校保健工作狀況調查研究。台北：弘祥。
李金美（1996）。談校園安全-浴火重生官聲彥。中縣文教，23，35-36。
吳秀碧（1998）。影響校園之死亡事件處理。學生輔導。58，20-29。
吳俊盛（1998）。國小學童事故傷害之調查研究。高雄醫學院公共衛生學研究所碩士論文
。
吳寶珠（1983）。台北縣國民中小學學校護士角色及工作困難調查研究。國立台灣師範大
學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。
吳國江（1997）。學校校園安全。高市文教。59，102-107。
吳冠衡（2001）。為全民健保尋求一個永續運轉的契機。全民健康保險雙月刊。32。6-10
。
周志中（1993）。心肺復甦數教育的缺失。台灣醫界，36（4），61-64。
周志中（1997）。台灣地區到院前救護之發展現況。彰化醫學。2（1），25-28。
周正成（1997）。氣喘病童的疾病特性及治療。兒童保健。3（2）。15-19。
周瑞雲（1996）。透視校園安全。教師天地。82。40-42。
周韞維（1998）。校園危機處理。學生輔導。58，70-77。
林貴滿（2000）。當代急症護理學。台北：華杏
林美聲、陳素芬、蔡淑蘭、林淑珠（1993）。學生緊急傷病處理問題探討。學校衛生，22
，80-88。
林旭龍（1988）。台北市國民中小學學校護士工作現況調查研究。國立台北護專學報。5
，43-72。
邱艷芬（1999）。身體評估-護理上的應用。台北：華杏。
胡勝川、王立敏（1993）。台北市以119救護車運送求醫病人之分析。台灣醫誌，92，s25-
32
胡勝川（1997）。實用到院前緊急救護。台北：金名。
胡勝川（1999）。復甦術訓練。台灣醫學。3（3），326-332。
胡勝川（2000）。探索我國的緊急醫療救護制度。台灣醫界。43（10），39-40。
唐慧文（1998）。談學校危機處理-以北一女波酸事件為例。學生輔導，58，58-69。
唐璽慧（1998）。校園危機處理。學生輔導，58，44-57。
席家玉（1998）。談學校安全教育的強化與實施。國教輔導。37（6），51-54。
高雄市校護協進會分會（1997）。高雄市學校衛生護理工作手冊。
高碧霞（1997）。台灣地區癌症學童就學狀況初步調查。中華民國兒童癌症基金會會訊
，57，103-106。
高偉峰、胡勝川、李建賢（1997）。從波士頓百年馬拉松及亞特蘭大奧運看臺灣辦大型活
動的緊急醫療救護。中華民國急救加護醫學會雜誌，8（4），158-164。
張文育（1996）。本校意外傷害之統計分析。中縣文教季刊，23，28。
張衍（1992）從急救過程談殘障預防。預防殘障保健指南。台北：教育部社會教育司。
張國頌（1994）。家庭醫業與緊急醫療網的運用。台灣醫界，37（12），26-28。
張國頌、周志中（1997）。國內急救教材之比較與檢討。中華民國急救加護醫學會雜誌，8
（2），47-62。
康清雲、陳麗婷（1995）。消防人員及消防類科學生對緊急醫療救護之認識及參與到院前
之急救意願。公共衛生21（4），231-243。
馬惠明（2001）。雙軌制高級到院前救護服務。全國緊急醫療業務十年回顧研討會論文選
集。
郭鐘隆（1994）。台灣地區國民小學學生健康檢查實施現況及其相關問題研究。國立台灣
師範大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。
郭鐘隆（1996）。台閩地區國民小學學校衛生現況調查研究。學校衛生，29，2-15。
陳麗美（1974）。台北市公私立中小學學校護士對學校衛生的知識、態度、行為的調查研
究。健康教育，34，25-31。
陳政友（1994）。學生緊急傷病處理。衛生保健台北市教師研習中心研習叢書。台北：北
市教研中心。
陳文鍾（2000）。心肺復甦術。台灣醫學，4（2），p138-142。
陳怡安（2001）。緊急醫療照護的法律責任。校園緊急救護。台北：中華民國學校衛生護
理學會。
教育部（1995）。國民中小學公共安全管理手冊。
教育部（1995）。學生意外事故處理手冊。
教育部（1997）。學校衛生工作指引。台北：中華民國學校衛生學會。
教育部（1997）。學生急病防治與健康醫護手冊。
教育部（1998）。訓輔法規行政函示選輯。
教育部（1998）。國民小學學生健康檢查工作手冊。
教育部（1998）。學校衛生相關法規彙編。
教育部（1997）。八十五學年度全國各級學校校園事件統計分析報告。
教育部（1998）。八十六學年度全國各級學校校園事件統計分析報告。
教育部（1999）。八十七學年度全國各級學校校園事件統計分析報告。
教育部（2000）。八十八學年度全國各級學校校園事件統計分析報告。
黃松元（1993）。健康促進與健康教育。台北：師苑。
黃松元、劉淑媛、賴香如、劉貴雲（1998）。安全與急救，台北：國立空中大學。
黃彥芳（1994）。國小學童事故傷害與影響申請學生團體保險給付的因素探討。台灣大學
護理研究所碩士論文。
黃碧桃（1998）。慢性疾病學生之照顧與管理。兒童保健雜誌，4（1），12。
黃啟煌（1996）。體育系應屆畢業生運動傷害急救知識之調查研究。國立體育學院論叢，7
（1），21-33。
黃啟煌（1998）。國小學童校園活動事故傷害調查研究。行政院衛生署八十七年度委託研
究計劃，保健工作研究報告。
黃秀媚（1995）。台灣北區公立國民中學學校護士理想與實際角色功能之比較。台灣師範
大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。
黃振球（1996）。談校園危機管理。教師天地，82，11-14。
彭秀英（1997）。學童意外傷病處理。空大學訊，194，86-90。
彭秀英（1997）。敦促學校衛生妥善立法。兒童保健。3（4），38-43。
葛應欽、謝淑芬（1997）。傷害事故防制。公共衛生學。台北市：陳拱北預防醫學基金會
。
楊銘欽、范靜媛、黃久美（1998）。台北市衛生局急救與心肺復甦數訓練班學員成果評估
。中華衛誌， 17（1），59-69。
葉玉枝（1996）。高雄市某國民中學學校傷害事故之流行病學研究。高雄醫學院公共衛生
學研究所碩士論文。
廖錚怡（1997）。午休？無休！勿休？談午間留守。校護薪傳，2，9-11。
蔡振修（1998）。護理人員的法律專論。台中：清流。
蔡崇振（1996）。從兩個實力談校園危機處理。中縣文教，23，20-23。
蔡明哲、紀志賢、葉又菁、林淑敏、嚴元隆、陳冠文、吳明和（1995）台南地區119病患對
到院前救護滿意度之分析，初步報告。中華民國急救加護醫學會雜誌，6（3），98-104。
蔡似蘭（1993）。台北市北投國小教職員心肺復甦數衛生教育效果之分析比較。衛生行政
，13（2），51-65。
鄭淑青（2001）。全民健康保險對無力繳納健保費者的協助措施。全民健康保險雙月刊
，32，30。
鄭麗貞（1997）。我國學校衛生護理的現況。兒童保健。3（2），8-14。
蔣博智、張文彬（1999）。最新學校保健室手冊。 譯自Newton.,Adams.,Marcontel,The
New School Health Handbook. 台北：合記。
謝博生（2000）醫療與社會。台北：臺大醫院。
韓揆（2001）醫療機構管理。公共衛生學。台北：偉華。
羅元宏、廖運正、林玉華（2000）。新竹縣推展國中小教師心肺復甦術教學成效報告。學
校衛生，36，85-96。
羅孟伶（1996）中部地區護生接受心肺復甦術課程後之知識、態度與行為及其相關因素之
探討。中台醫專學報，9，35-53。
蘇妃君（1992）。台灣北區國民中小學護士專業素養及未來培育需求之調查研究。台灣師
範大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。
貳、英文部份
American School Health Association.（1999）.Report of the ASHA National Injury
and Violence Prevention Task Force An Executive Summary . the Journal of
School Health,69（5）.177-180.
Allensworth, D D.（1994）.School health services：issues and challenges. The
Comprehensive School Health Challenge.California：ETR Associates.
Brudvik,C.（2000）.Child injuries in Bergen,N0rway.Injury,int.j.care Injured
31.761-767.
Boyce, WT., Sprunger, LW., Sobolewski, S.,＆Schaefer, C.（1984）.Epidemiology
of Injuries in a Large, Urban School District. Pediatrics,74（3）.342-349.
Creswell,WH.,＆Newman,I.M.（1993）. School Health Practice. St.Louis：Mosby.
Dorn（1999）.Evacuation kit for school emergencies.School Planning＆Management.
38（7）.16.
Duncan,P.,Igoe,JB.（1998）.School Health Services.Health is Academic.New York
and London：Teachers College Columbia University
Eichel,JD.S.＆Goldmen,L.（2001）.Safety makes sense：A program to prevent
unintentional injuries in New York City Public Schools. Journal of School
Health,71（5）.180-183.
Evans,GD.＆ Sheps,SB.（1987）.The epidemiology ofschool injuries：The problem
of measuring injury severity.Journal of Community Health,12（4）.246-256.
Haag,JH.（1975）.School Health Program.London：Philadelphia：Lea＆Febiger.
Hale,C.＆Varnes,J.（1980）.Assessing School Emergency Care Preparedness.
Florida ：University of Florida .
Hansen,LL.（2000）The architecture of safety excellence.Professional safety .
may.26-29.
Junkins,J.EP.,Knight,S.,Lightfoot,AC.,Cazier,CF.（1999）.Epidemiology of
school injuries in Utah：A population-based study. Journal of School Health,69
（10）.409-412.
Krejcie ＆ Morgan（1970）Determining samplesize for research activities.
Education ＆ Psychological measurement.30.607-610
Knight,S.,Vernon,DD.,Fines,RJ.＆Dean,JM.（1999）.Prehospital emergency care
for children at school and nonschool locations.Pediatrics, 103（6）.1276-1277.
Laflamme,L.＆ Eilert-Petersson,E.（1998）.School-injury Patterns：A tool for
safety planning at the school and community levels. Accident Analysis ＆
Prevention,30（2）.277-283.
Laflamme,L.,Menckel,E. ＆ Aldenberg,E.（1998）.School-Injury Determinants and
Characteristics：developing an investigation instrument form a literature
review. Accident Analysis ＆Prevention, 30（4）.481-495.
Lyons, E.,Martens,K., Mazzuca,R.,Stein-Spencer,L.（1998）Illinois Emergency
Medical Services for Children.Resource Manual for the Nurse in the School
Setting. Illinois：The Illinois EMSC Advisory Board. WWW.lumc.edu/emsc.
Miller,TR.＆Spicer,RS.（1998）.How Safe Are Our School？.American Journal of
Public Health,88（3）.413-418.
Marc Posner （2000）.Preventing School Ijuries.New Jersey：Rutger University.
Redican,J.,Olsen,K.＆Baffi,R.（1986）.Organization of School Health Programs.
London：Collier Macmillan Publishers.
Sleet,DA.（1994）.Injury Prevention.The Comprehensive School Health Challenge.
California：ETR Associates.
Scala,CD.,Gallagher,SS., ＆Schneps,SE.（1997）.Causes and Outcomes of
Pediatric Injuries Occurring at School. Journal of School Health,67（9）.384-
389.
Thies,KM.（1999）.Identifying the educational implications of Chronic illness
in school children. Journal of School Health,69（10）.392-397.
Waite, M J. (1991). The Relationship between Student Accident Frequency Rates
and School Administrators’ Perceptions of the School Safety Program .
Unpublished Locforal Dissertation. University of San Francisco
Wilson, C C.（1964）. School Health Services.Washington,DC.＆Chicago：National
Education Association and American Medical Association.