Differentiation of confirmed major trauma patients and potential major trauma patients using pre-hospital trauma triage criteria

Background

There is a paucity of literature comparing trauma patients who meet pre-hospital trauma triage guidelines (‘potential major trauma’) with trauma patients who are identified as ‘confirmed major trauma patients’ at hospital discharge. This type of epidemiological surveillance is critical to continuous performance monitoring of mature trauma care systems. The current study aimed to determine if the current trauma triage criteria resulted in under/over-triage and whether the triage criteria were being adhered to.

Methods

For a 12-month time period there were 45,332 adult (≥16 years of age) trauma patients transported by ambulance to hospitals in metropolitan Melbourne. This retrospective study analysed data from 1166 patients identified at hospital discharge as ‘confirmed major trauma patients’ and 16,479 patients captured by the current pre-hospital trauma triage criteria, who did not go on to meet the definition of confirmed major trauma. These patients comprise the ‘potential major trauma’ group. Non-major trauma patients (N = 27,687) were excluded from the study. Pre-hospital data was sourced from the Victorian Ambulance Clinical Information System (VACIS) and hospital data was sourced from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR). Statistical analyses compared the characteristics of confirmed major trauma and potential major trauma patients according to the current trauma triage criteria.

Results

The leading causes of confirmed major trauma and potential major trauma were motor vehicle collisions (30.1% vs. 19.2%) and falls (30.0% vs. 48.7%). More than 80% of confirmed major trauma and 24.4% of potential major trauma patients were directly transported to a major trauma service. Overall, similar numbers of confirmed major trauma patients and potential major trauma patients had one or more aberrant vital signs (67.0% vs. 66.4%). Specific injuries meeting triage criteria were sustained by 69.2% of confirmed major trauma patients and 51.4% of potential major trauma patients, while 11.7% of confirmed major trauma patients and 4.6% of potential major trauma patients met the combined mechanism of injury criteria.

Conclusions

While the sensitivity of the current pre-hospital trauma triage criteria is high, if paramedics strictly followed the criteria there would be significant over-triage. Triage models using different mechanistic and physiologic criteria should be evaluated.     

Advancing age and trauma: Triage destination compliance and mortality in Victoria,Australia

Objective

To describe the association between increasing age, pre-hospital triage destination compliance, and patient outcomes for adult trauma patients.

Methods

A retrospective data review was conducted of adult trauma patients attended by Ambulance Victoria (AV) between 2007 and 2011. AV pre-hospital data was matched to Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) hospital data. Inclusion criteria were adult patients sustaining a traumatic mechanism of injury. Patients sustaining secondary traumatic injuries from non-traumatic causes were excluded. The primary outcomes were destination compliance and in-hospital mortality. These outcomes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

There were 326,035 adult trauma patients from 2007 to 2011, and 18.7% met the AV pre-hospital trauma triage criteria. The VSTR classified 7461 patients as confirmed major trauma (40.9% > 55 years). Whilst the trauma triage criteria have high sensitivity (95.8%) and a low under-triage rate (4.2%), the adjusted odds of destination compliance for older trauma patients were between 23.7% and 41.4% lower compared to younger patients. The odds of death increased 8% for each year above age 55 years (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.09).

Conclusions

Despite effective pre-hospital trauma triage criteria, older trauma patients are less likely to be transported to a major trauma service and have poorer outcomes than younger adult trauma patients. It is likely that the benefit of access to definitive trauma care may vary across age groups according to trauma cause, patient history, comorbidities and expected patient outcome. Further research is required to explore how the Victorian trauma system can be optimised to meet the needs of a rapidly ageing population.     

Evaluation of pre-hospital trauma triage criteria: a prospective study at a Danish level I trauma centre

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the precision of our trauma triage protocol [based on the American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma (ACS COT)] in identifying severely injured defined as an injury severity score (ISS) > 15. Our hypothesis was that isolated mechanism-of-injury criteria were responsible for a significant over-triage leading to over-use of our trauma team. METHODS: Design: A prospective cohort study. Setting: A level I trauma centre, Aarhus, Denmark. Patients and participants: Among all injured patients admitted during a 6-month period in 2003 we identified severely injured. During the study period, trauma team activations were consecutively registered and triage criteria were prospectively collected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, over-triage and under-triage were calculated. RESULTS: Out of 15,162 patients in the emergency department, 848 injured patients were included and 59 (7%) were severely injured. We had 242 trauma team activations with 54 (22%) severely injured. Sensitivity was 92%, specificity 76%, giving an over-triage of 24% and an under-triage of 8%. The positive predictive value was 22%. Among 60 patients with mechanism-of-injury as the only criterion, five were severely injured in contrast to 12 out of 20 patients with mechanism-of-injury combined with physiological and/or anatomical criteria. CONCLUSION: The positive predictive value of our triage protocol was low, only 22%. This was mainly as a result of a significant over-triage from isolated mechanism-of-injury criteria. We recommend revision of the triage protocol and reallocation of our trauma team resources.     

Is mechanism of injury alone a useful predictor of major trauma?

INTRODUCTION: The Review of Trauma and Emergency Services in Victoria -1999 left unresolved the predictive value of mechanism of injury in pre-hospital trauma triage guidelines. Ethics approval was granted. The objective of this study is to determine if mechanism of injury alone is a useful predictor of major trauma in pre-hospital trauma triage. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all Victorian ambulance trauma Patient Care Records (PCRs) for 2002. PCRs where patients were physiologically stable, had no significant pattern of injury, but had a significant mechanism of injury were identified and compared with the State Trauma Registry to determine those patients who sustained hospital defined major trauma. RESULTS: There were 4571 incidents of mechanism of injury only, of which 62% were males, median age was 28 years. Two criteria had statistically significant results. A fall from greater than 5m (n=52) of whom 5 (RR 10.86, CI 4.47 to 26.42, P<0.0001) sustained major trauma and a patient trapped greater than 30min (n=36) of whom 3 (RR 9.0, CI 2.92 to 27.70, P=0003) sustained major trauma. The overall results are not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that individual mechanism of injury criteria have no clinical or operational significance in pre-hospital trauma triage of patients who have an absence of physiological distress and no significant pattern of injury. These results add to the knowledge base of trauma presentation in the pre-hospital setting, especially in Australia, and are the baseline for further studies.     

Evaluating pre-hospital triage and decision-making in patients who died within 30 days post-trauma: A multi-site,multi-center,cohort study

IntroductionEvaluating pre-hospital triage and decision-making in patients who died post-trauma is crucial to decrease undertriage and improve future patients’ chances of survival. A study that has adequately investigated this is currently lacking. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate pre-hospital triage and decision-making in patients who died within 30 days post-trauma.Materials and methodsA multi-site, multi-center, cohort study was conducted. Trauma patients who were transported from the scene of injury to a trauma center by ambulance and died within 30 days post-trauma, were included. The main outcome was undertriage, defined as erroneously transporting a severely injured patient (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16) to a lower-level trauma center.ResultsBetween January 2015 and December 2017, 2116 patients were included, of whom 765 (36.2%) were severely injured. A total of 103 of these patients (13.5%) were undertriaged. Undertriaged patients were often elderly with a severe head and/or thoracic injury as a result of a minor fall (< 2 m). A majority of the undertriaged patients were triaged without assistance of a specialized physician (100 [97.1%]), did not meet field triage criteria for level-I trauma care (81 [78.6%]), and could have been transported to the nearest level-I trauma center within 45 min (93 [90.3%]).ConclusionApproximately 14% of the severely injured patients who died within 30 days were undertriaged and could have benefited from treatment at a level-I trauma center (i.e., specialized trauma care). Improvement of pre-hospital triage is needed to potentially increase future patients’ chances of survival.     

Long-Term Evaluation of Prehospital Trauma Patient Triage in a Large Urban Area*

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate emergency medical technician (EMT) compliance after introduction of trauma patient triage protocols to level I or II trauma centers in a major urban area. Patients and Methods: A population-based cohort of all trauma victims transported from 1994 to 2001 was assembled. Triage protocols based on the Prehospital Index and high-velocity impact were introduced in July of 1995. Two sets of criteria were developed, one for patients intended specifically for the level I trauma centers and another for patients intended to either level I or II centers. Trauma patients having met triage criteria were identified and the type of hospital to which the patient was taken was compared to that expected by the protocols. Results: Overall, 16,356 patients met trauma triage criteria for direct transport to a trauma center (level I or II) during the 7 years under study. In the 10 months prior to implementation of trauma triage protocols, 57% of these patients were directly transported to appropriate level centers. Following protocol implementation, compliance rose to 80% (p < 0.001). 2 years following protocol implementation, the appropriate triage rate reached 91% (p < 0.001). For the specific protocol pertaining to the most severely injured intended for the level I centers, compliance was lower and took longer to improve. Conclusion: A systematic approach to triage of severely injured trauma patients in the prehospital setting is possible to implement and is appropriately applied by EMTs.* Presented at 6th European Trauma Congress, Prague, May, 2004.     

Avoiding Cribari gridlock 2: The standardized triage assessment tool outperforms the Cribari matrix method in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers

ObjectivesThe Cribari Matrix Method (CMM) is the current standard to identify over/undertriage but requires manual trauma triage reviews to address its inadequacies. The Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT) partially emulates triage review by combining CMM with the Need For Trauma Intervention, an indicator of major trauma. This study aimed to validate STAT in a multicenter sample.MethodsThirty-eight adult and pediatric US trauma centers submitted data for 97,282 encounters. Mixed models estimated the effects of overtriage and undertriage versus appropriate triage on the odds of complication, odds of discharge to a continuing care facility, and differences in length of stay for both CMM and STAT. Significance was assessed at p <0.005.ResultsOvertriage (53.49% vs. 30.79%) and undertriage (17.19% vs. 3.55%) rates were notably lower with STAT than with CMM. CMM and STAT had significant associations with all outcomes, with overtriages demonstrating lower injury burdens and undertriages showing higher injury burdens than appropriately triaged patients. STAT indicated significantly stronger associations with outcomes than CMM, except in odds of discharge to continuing care facility among patients who received a full trauma team activation where STAT and CMM were similar.ConclusionsThis multicenter study strongly indicates STAT safely and accurately flags fewer cases for triage reviews, thereby reducing the subjectivity introduced by manual triage determinations. This may enable better refinement of activation criteria and reduced workload.     

Adherence with the pre-hospital triage protocol in the transport of injured patients in an urban setting

BackgroundPre-hospital triage protocols are an important component in the treatment of injured patients. The aim was to determine the level of, and factors associated with, adherence to the pre-hospital trauma triage criteria for urban patients transported in New South Wales, Australia.MethodThis retrospective study included patients injured in urban areas who were transported by road for the treatment of traumatic injuries in the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007.ResultsOf the 57,775 transported to hospital due to traumatic injury, 9344 (16%) met one or more of the pre-hospital triage criteria. Of these, 74% were transported to a protocol adherent major or regional trauma centre. Adherence rates differed by triage criteria met and was lowest for patients meeting physiologic-only criteria (63.5%) and highest for patients meeting all three triage criteria of physiology, mechanism and injury (85.4%). Female gender, increasing patient age, patients classified as having had a fall, the qualification level of treating officer and patients transported between midday to 18:00 (relative to those transported between midnight to 06:00) were factors associated with significantly lower levels of protocol adherence with respect to hospital destination. Minimal time differences were evident between patients transported to protocol adherent and non-adherent destinations.ConclusionBased on the post hoc evaluation of triage status, adherence to the triage protocol was 74%. Analysis of patient destinations for protocol non-adherence appears to indicate that paramedic interpretation and discretion played a role in determining hospital choice. There was a marginal time difference between those transported to protocol adherent and non-adherent destinations. Future research needs to determine whether deviations from protocol are associated with differential mortality.     

Prediction of intra-hospital mortality after severe trauma: which pre-hospital score is the most accurate?

PurposeComputing trauma scores in the field allows immediate severity assessment for appropriate triage. Two pre-hospital scores can be useful in this context: the Triage-Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS) and the Mechanism, Glasgow, Age and arterial Pressure (MGAP) score. The Trauma Revised Injury Severity Score (TRISS), not applicable in the pre-hospital setting, is the reference score to predict in-hospital mortality after severe trauma. The aim of this study was to compare T-RTS, MGAP and TRISS in a cohort of consecutive patients admitted in the Trauma system of the Northern French Alps(TRENAU).Materials and methodsFrom 2009 to 2011, 3260 patients with suspected severe trauma according to the Vittel criteria were included in the TRENAU registry. All data necessary to compute T-RTS, MGAP and TRISS were collected in patients admitted to one level-I, two level-II and ten level-III trauma centers. The primary endpoint was death from any cause during hospital stay. Discriminative power of each score to predict mortality was measured using receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. To test the relevancy of each score for triage, we also tested their sensitivity at usual cut-offs. We expected a sensitivity higher than 95% to limit undertriage.ResultsThe TRISS score showed the highest area under the ROC curve (0.95 [CI 95% 0.94–0.97], p < 0.01). Pre-hospital MGAP score had significantly higher AUC compared to T-RTS (0.93 [CI 95% 0.91–0.95] vs 0.86 [CI 95% 0.83–0.89], respectively, p < 0.01). MGAP score < 23 had a sensitivity of 88% to detect mortality. Sensitivities of T-RTS < 12 and TRISS < 0.91 were 79% and 87%, respectively.Discussion/conclusionPre-hospital calculation of the MGAP score appeared superior to T-RTS score in predicting intra-hospital mortality in a cohort of trauma patients. Although TRISS had the highest AUC, this score can only be available after hospital admission. These findings suggest that the MGAP score could be of interest in the pre-hospital setting to assess patients’ severity. However, its lack of sensitivity indicates that MGAP should not replace the decision scheme to direct the most severe patients to level-I trauma center.     

“Low initial pre-hospital end-tidal carbon dioxide predicts inferior clinical outcomes in trauma patients”

IntroductionCurrent guidelines continue to lead to under- and over-triage of injured patients in the pre-hospital setting. End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) has been correlated with mortality and hemorrhagic shock in trauma patients. This study examines the correlation between ETCO2 and in-hospital outcomes among non-intubated patients in the pre-hospital setting.MethodsWe retrospectively studied a cohort of non-intubated adult trauma patients with initial pre-hospital side-stream capnography-obtained ETCO2 presenting via ground transport from a single North Carolina EMS agency to a level one trauma center from January 2018 to December 2018. Using the Liu method, the optimal threshold for low ETCO2 was ≤ 28.5 mmHg.ResultsInitial pre-hospital ETCO2 was recorded for 324 (22.0%) of 1473 patients with EMS data. Patients with low ETCO2 (N = 98, 30.3% of cohort) were older (median 58y vs 45y), but mechanisms of injury and scene vital signs were similar (p>0.05) between low and normal/high ETCO2 cohorts. Median injury severity score (ISS) did not differ significantly between the low and normal/high ETCO2 groups (5 vs 8, p=0.48). Compared to normal/high ETCO2, low ETCO2 correlated with increased unadjusted odds of mortality (OR 5.06), in-hospital complications (OR 2.06), and blood transfusion requirement (OR 3.05), p<0.05. Low ETCO2 was associated with 7.25 odds of mortality (95% CI 2.19,23.97, p=0.001) and 3.94 odds of blood transfusion (95% CI 1.32-11.78) after adjusting for age, ISS, and scene GCS. All but one of the massive transfusion patients (N = 8/9) had a low pre-hospital ETCO2.ConclusionsLow initial pre-hospital ETCO2 associates with poor clinical outcomes despite similar ISS and mechanisms of injury. ETCO2 is a potentially useful pre-hospital point-of-care tool to aid triage of trauma patients as it may identify hemorrhaging patients and predict mortality.     

Do pre-hospital trauma alert criteria predict the severity of injury and a need for an emergent surgical intervention?

ObjectiveEfficient triage may have a major influence on mortality and morbidity as well as financial consequences. A continuous effort to improve this decision making process and update the trauma alert criteria is being made. However, criteria for determining the evacuation priority are not well developed. We performed a prospective study to evaluate which pre-hospital parameters identify major trauma victims with an emphasis on a need for emergent surgical procedures.MethodsA prospective cohort included 601 patients admitted to a level one trauma centre over a three months period. The pre-hospital trauma alert criteria were recorded and set as independent variables. All major surgical procedures were graded in real time as: emergent, urgent, or not urgent. The ISS was calculated after completion of all the diagnostic workup. Patients were classified as major trauma victims if their calculated ISS was 16 or greater, and those needed an urgent intervention or intensive care. The relative risks (RR) for major trauma and a need for an emergent operation were calculated.Results243 (40%) patients were classified as having a major trauma. 39 (6.5%) patients required an emergent operative intervention: 24 for an active bleeding, 5 for a pericardial tamponade and 10 for an imminent cerebral herniation. Paramedic judgement and a penetrating injury to the trunk were the most common causes for over triage. However, a penetrating injury to the trunk had been the only clue that the victim needed an emergent operation in five cases. 128 patients had a pre-hospital Glasgow coma score (GCS) ≤12. Altered mental status was the most common and a significant predictor of both major trauma (RR of 3.00 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.98–4.53) and a need for an emergent operation (RR, 95% CI: 4.43, 2.28–8.58). Also, a systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg was highly associated with an emergent operation (RR, 95% CI: 11.69, 5.85–23.36).ConclusionFor determining the evacuation priority, we suggest a triage system based on three major criteria: mental status, hypotension and a penetrating injury to the trunk. Overall, the set of trauma alert criteria system can be further simplified and enable better utilisation of resources.     

Prehospital triage and survival of major trauma patients in a Dutch regional trauma system: relevance of trauma registry

Background and aims Since 1999, the Dutch trauma care has been regionalized into ten trauma systems. This study is the first to review such a trauma system. The aim was to examine the sensitivity of prehospital triage criteria [triage revised trauma score (T-RTS)] in identifying major trauma patients and to evaluate the current level of trauma care of a regionalized Dutch trauma system for major trauma patients.Patients and methods Major trauma patients (n=511) (June 2001–December 2003) were selected from a regional trauma registry database. The prehospital T-RTS was computed and standardized W scores (Ws) were generated to compare observed vs expected survival based on contemporary US- and UK-norm databases.Results The T-RTS showed low sensitivity for the prehospital identification of major trauma patients [34.1% (T-RTS≤10)]. Nevertheless, 78.0% of all major trauma patients were directly managed by the trauma center. These patients were more severely injured than their counterparts at non-trauma-center hospitals (p<0.001). No significant difference emerged between the mortality rates of both groups. The Ws {−0.46 calculated on the US model [95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from −1.99 to 1.07]} [0.60 calculated on the UK model (95% CI ranging from −1.25 to 2.44)] did not differ significantly from zero.Conclusion The trauma center managed most of the major trauma patients in the trauma system but the triage criteria need to be reconsidered. The level of care of the regional trauma system was shown to measure up to US and UK benchmarks.     

Clinician tasking in ambulance control improves the identification of major trauma patients and pre-hospital critical care team tasking

IntroductionTrauma remains the fourth leading cause of death in western countries and is the leading cause of death in the first four decades of life. NICE guidance in 2016 advocated the attendance of pre-hospital critical care trauma team (PHCCT) in the pre-hospital stage of the care of patients with major trauma. Previous publications support dispatch by clinicians who are also actively involved in the delivery of the PHCCT service; however there is a lack of objective outcome measures across the current reviewed evidence base. In this study, we aimed to assess the accuracy of PHCCT clinician led dispatch, when measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS).MethodsA retrospective cohort study over a 2 year period pre and post implementation of a PHCCT clinician led dispatch of PHCCT for potential major trauma patients, using national ambulance data combined with national trauma registry data.ResultsA total of 99,702 trauma related calls were made to SAS including 495 major trauma patients with an ISS >15, and a total of 454 dispatches of a PHCCT. Following the introduction of a PHCCT clinician staffed trauma desk, the sensitivity for major trauma was increased from 11.3% to 25.9%. The difference in sensitivity between the pre and post trauma desk group was significant at 14.6% (95% CI 7.4%–21.4%, p < .001).DiscussionThe results from the study support the results from other studies recommending that a PHCCT clinician should be located in ambulance control to identify major trauma patients as early as possible and co-ordinate the response.     

Prehospital identification of major trauma patients

Background and aims  Prehospital triage is aimed at getting the right patient to the right hospital. Evaluations on the performance of prehospital triage tools are scarce. This study examines the ability of the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) triage guidelines to identify major trauma patients in a European trauma system. Furthermore, this study evaluates the predictive power of other prehospital measurements. Materials and methods  Prehospital data of 151 minor (Injury Severity Score (ISS) 1–15) and 151 major trauma patients, (ISS > 15) treated at a Dutch trauma center, were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of major trauma patients. Results  The major trauma patients particularly incurred severe head injuries (45.7%) and severe thorax injuries (21.9%). The ACSCOT guidelines had a sensitivity of 84.1% and a specificity of 77.5%. A new prehospital trauma triage model was constructed including nine predictors of major trauma. This model identified more major trauma patients than the ACSCOT (sensitivity 92.1%, p = 0.023) and resulted in a comparable specificity (79.5%; p = 0.711). Conclusion  The new triage model outperforms the ACSCOT triage guidelines in identifying major trauma patients in the prehospital setting. The new triage guidelines may improve patient outcomes but needs to be validated in a prospective study.     

Prehospital triage in the injured pediatric patient

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Identifying major trauma patients in the prehospital setting is essential in determining management, destination, and best utilization of emergency department resources. Few methods of trauma triage have been accepted unanimously. This study prospectively evaluates the efficacy of comprehensive field triage using 12 criteria (simplified version of the American College of Surgeon's guidelines) in 1,285 pediatric trauma patients. METHODS: Major trauma was defined as occurring in those who died in the emergency room, had major surgery (penetrating injury involving surgery of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, or groin), or were admitted directly to the intensive care unit. The correlation between trauma triage criteria, hospital disposition, and triage accuracy were determined prospectively and compared in the pediatric patients (36 months) with an adult cohort of patients (12 months). RESULTS: A total of 1,285 pediatric trauma patients were evaluated and compared with 1,326 adult trauma patients. The most accurate trauma triage criterion for major injury was a blood pressure < or = 90 mmHg (systolic) with an accuracy of 86%. This was followed by burn greater than 15% total body surface area (79%), Glasgow Coma Scale score < or = 12 (78%), respiratory rate less than 10/min or greater than 29/min (73%), and paralysis (50%). Less accurate criteria included a fall from greater than 20 feet (33%); penetrating injury to head, neck, chest, abdomen, or groin (29%); ejection from vehicle (24%); pedestrian struck at greater than 20 mph (16%); paramedic judgement (12%); rollover (3%); and extrication (0%). The Glasgow Coma Scale score was a more accurate indicator of major injury in children than adults, and paramedic judgement was less accurate in children when compared with adults. Of the 379 major pediatric trauma victims, the Revised Trauma Score and Pediatric Trauma Score missed 36% and 45% of these major trauma victims, respectively. The overtriage rate for children was 71% with a sensitivity of 100% (no missed major trauma patients). CONCLUSIONS: Physiological variables, anatomic site, and mechanism of injury provide a sensitive and safe system of triage. Continued education of prehospital personnel regarding pediatric trauma and stratification of the current triage tools are necessary to minimize overtriage in an era of shrinking resources.     

Performance characteristics of five triage tools for major incidents involving traumatic injuries to children

Context Triage tools are an essential component of the emergency response to a major incident. Although fortunately rare, mass casualty incidents involving children are possible which mandate reliable triage tools to determine the priority of treatment.ObjectiveTo determine the performance characteristics of five major incident triage tools amongst paediatric casualties who have sustained traumatic injuries.Design, setting, participantsRetrospective observational cohort study using data from 31,292 patients aged less than 16 years who sustained a traumatic injury. Data were obtained from the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database.Interventions Statistical evaluation of five triage tools (JumpSTART, START, CareFlight, Paediatric Triage Tape/Sieve and Triage Sort) to predict death or severe traumatic injury (injury severity score >15).Main outcome measures Performance characteristics of triage tools (sensitivity, specificity and level of agreement between triage tools) to identify patients at high risk of death or severe injury.ResultsOf the 31,292 cases, 1029 died (3.3%), 6842 (21.9%) had major trauma (defined by an injury severity score >15) and 14,711 (47%) were aged 8 years or younger. There was variation in the performance accuracy of the tools to predict major trauma or death (sensitivities ranging between 36.4 and 96.2%; specificities 66.0–89.8%). Performance characteristics varied with the age of the child. CareFlight had the best overall performance at predicting death, with the following sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) respectively: 95.3% (93.8–96.8) and 80.4% (80.0–80.9). JumpSTART was superior for the triaging of children under 8 years; sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) respectively: 86.3% (83.1–89.5) and 84.8% (84.2–85.5). The triage tools were generally better at identifying patients who would die than those with non-fatal severe injury.ConclusionThis statistical evaluation has demonstrated variability in the accuracy of triage tools at predicting outcomes for children who sustain traumatic injuries. No single tool performed consistently well across all evaluated scenarios.     

The Value of the Trauma Mechanism in the Triage of Severely Injured Elderly

Abstract Background:   The triage of trauma patients is currently based on the trauma mechanism. However, it is known that elderly patients can sustain severe injuries due to insignificant trauma mechanisms. As such, triage methods might be questionable. Objective:   To evaluate whether current trauma triage criteria are appropriate in severely injured elderly patients. Methods:   To analyze the effect of the trauma mechanism on triage and treatment, consecutive patients ≥ 55 years of age, with an injury severity score > 15, treated from 2002 to 2005 were divided into those who sustained a high-energy trauma (HET) versus a low energy trauma (LET). Pre-hospital and in-hospital data, injury characteristics, and data on mortality and disablement one year postinjury (sickness impact profile) were analyzed for HET and LET groups. Results:   Age, sex and co-morbidity rate were similar in 84 HET patients and 107 LET patients. HET patients (mean ISS 28) received more sophisticated trauma care than LET patients (mean ISS 22), although mortality was similar (38 vs. 34%). Long-term disablement was also similar (median SIP scores 4 vs. 6). Severe head injuries and the Revised Trauma Score were related to mortality. Physical disablement was related to preexisting co-morbidities. No variables were related to psychosocial disablement. Conclusions:   In elderly people a low energy trauma may lead to severe consequences. Not only the trauma mechanism, but also age, co-morbidity, and the likelihood of a brain injury should be leading in the triage and subsequent management of severely injured elderly.     

Prehospital triage of trauma patients before and after implementation of a regional triage guideline

IntroductionSeverely injured trauma patients have a considerable mortality rate. One way to reduce the mortality is to ensure optimal triage. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma has since 1986 made guidelines for the triage of trauma patients. These guidelines formed the basis, when the capital region of Denmark implemented a regional trauma triage guideline on February 15th 2016. It is uncertain how the implementation of the regional trauma triage guideline has influenced the triage of trauma patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the changes in admission pattern of trauma patients in the entire region after the implementation of the regional trauma triage guideline. We hypothesized that there would be a reduction in the proportion of trauma patients admitted to the trauma center after the implementation of the regional trauma triage guideline.Patients and methodsIn this observational cohort study with one-year follow-up, we used a national patient registry in Denmark. We identified trauma patients three years before and three years after the implementation of a new regional trauma triage guideline. The primary outcome was the proportion of trauma patients triaged to the regional trauma center. Secondary outcomes were: 30-day and one-year mortality, overtriage, and undertriage.ResultsWe found a significant reduction in the proportion of trauma patients triaged to the trauma center from 2115/5951 (35.5%) to 1970/5857 (33.6%), after the implementation of the regional trauma triage guideline, the difference being 1.9% (95% CI: 0.19 to 3.6%); P = 0.03. Further, a significant reduction of overtriage from 15.4% to 9.5% (difference 5.9% with 95% CI of 3.8 to 7.9%) was found. No significant changes in undertriage, 30-day or one-year mortality were found (1.07% vs 0.97%, 4.3% vs 4.5%, and 15.7% vs 16.6% respectively).ConclusionA significant decrease in the proportion of trauma patients admitted to the trauma center was found after implementation of a new regional trauma triage guideline. A reduction was seen in overtriage, but no changes were found in undertriage and both short-term and long-term mortality remained unchanged.     

The diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools in identifying patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

IntroductionPrehospital care providers are usually the first responders for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Early identification of patients with TBI enables them to receive trauma centre care, which improves outcomes. Two recent systematic reviews concluded that prehospital triage tools for undifferentiated major trauma have low accuracy. However, neither review focused specifically on patients with suspected TBI. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the existing evidence on the diagnostic performance of prehospital triage tools for patients with suspected TBI.MethodsA comprehensive search of the current literature was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane library (inception to 1st June 2021). We also searched Google Scholar, OpenGrey, pre-prints (MedRxiv) and dissertation databases. We included all studies published in English language evaluating the accuracy of prehospital triage tools for TBI. We assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Two reviewers independently performed searches, screened titles and abstracts and undertook methodological quality assessments. Due to the heterogeneity in the population of interest and prehospital triage tools used, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThe initial search identified 1787 articles, of which 8 unique eligible studies met the inclusion criteria (5 retrospective, 2 prospective, 1 mixed). Overall, sensitivity of triage tools studied ranged from 19.8% to 87.9% for TBI identification. Specificity ranged from 41.4% to 94.4%. Two decision tools have been validated more than once: HITS-NS (2 studies, sensitivity 28.3–32.6%, specificity 89.1–94.4%) and the Field Triage Decision Scheme (4 studies, sensitivity 19.8–64.5%, specificity 77.4%-93.1%). Existing tools appear to systematically under-triage older patients.ConclusionFurther efforts are needed to improve and optimise prehospital triage tools. Consideration of additional predictors (e.g., biomarkers, clinical decision aids and paramedic judgement) may be required to improve diagnostic accuracy.