Double coding and mapping using Abbreviated Injury Scale 1998 and 2005: Identifying issues for trauma data

Introduction

The 2005 version of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS05) potentially represents a significant change in injury spectrum classification, due to a substantial increase in the codeset size and alterations to the agreed severity of many injuries compared to the previous version (AIS98). Whilst many trauma registries around the world are moving to adopt AIS05 or its 2008 update (AIS08), its effect on patient classification in existing registries, and the optimum method of comparing existing data collections with new AIS05 collections are unknown. The present study aimed to assess the potential impact of adopting the AIS05 codeset in an established trauma system, and to identify issues associated with this change.

Methods

A current subset of consecutive major trauma patients admitted to two large hospitals in the Australian state of Victoria were double-coded in AIS98 and AIS05. Assigned codesets were also mapped to the other AIS version using code lists supplied in the AIS05 manual, giving up to four AIS codes per injury sustained. Resulting codesets were assessed for agreement in codes used, injury severity and calculated severity scores.

Results

602 injuries sustained by 109 patients were compared. Adopting AIS05 would lead to a decrease in the number of designated major trauma patients in Victoria, estimated at 22% (95% confidence interval, 15-31%). Differences in AIS level between versions were significantly more likely to occur amongst head and chest injuries. Data mapped to a different codeset performed better in paired comparisons than raw AIS98 and AIS05 codesets, with data mapping of AIS05 codes back to AIS98 giving significantly higher levels of agreement in AIS level, ISS and NISS than other potential comparisons, and resulting in significantly fewer conversion problems than attempting to map AIS98 codes to AIS05.

Conclusions

This study provides new insights into AIS codeset change impact. Adoption of AIS05 or AIS08 in established registries will decrease major trauma patient numbers. Code mapping between AIS versions can improve comparisons between datasets in different AIS versions, although the injury profile of a trauma population will affect the degree of comparability. At present, mapping AIS05 data back to AIS98 is recommended.     

Mapping Abbreviated Injury Scale data from 1990 to 1998 versions: A stepping-stone in the contemporary evaluation of trauma

Introduction

Many trauma registries have used the 1990 revision of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS; AIS90) to code injuries sustained by trauma patients. Due to changes made to the AIS codeset since its release, AIS90-coded data lacks currency in the assessment of injury severity. The ability to map between the 1998 revision of AIS (AIS98) and the current (2008) AIS version (AIS08) already exists. The development of a map for transforming AIS90-coded data into AIS98 would therefore enable contemporary injury severity estimates to be derived from AIS90-coded data.

Methods

Differences between the AIS90 and AIS98 codesets were identified, and AIS98 maps were generated for AIS90 codes which changed or were not present in AIS98. The effectiveness of this map in describing the severity of trauma using AIS90 and AIS98 was evaluated using a large state registry dataset, which coded injury data using AIS90 over several years. Changes in Injury Severity Scores (ISS) calculated using AIS90 and mapped AIS98 codesets were assessed using three distinct methods.

Results

Forty-nine codes (out of 1312) from the AIS90 codeset changed or were not present in AIS98. Twenty-four codes required the assignment of maps to AIS98 equivalents. AIS90-coded data from 78,075 trauma cases were used to evaluate the map. Agreement in calculated ISS between coded AIS90 data and mapped AIS98 data was very high (kappa = 0.971). The ISS changed in 1902 cases (2.4%), and the mean difference in ISS across all cases was 0.006 points. The number of cases classified as major trauma using AIS98 decreased by 0.8% compared with AIS90. A total of 3102 cases (4.0%) sustained at least one AIS90 injury which required mapping to AIS98.

Conclusions

This study identified the differences between the AIS90 and AIS98 codesets, and generated maps for the conversion process. In practice, the differences between AIS90- and AIS98-coded data were very small. As a result, AIS90-coded data can be mapped to the current AIS version (AIS08) via AIS98, with little apparent impact on the functional accuracy of the mapped dataset produced.     

Validation of international trauma scoring systems in urban trauma centres in India

IntroductionIn the Lower-Middle Income Country setting, we validate trauma severity scoring systems, namely Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Scale (NISS) score, the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS) score and the TRauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) using Indian trauma patients.Patients and methodsFrom 1 September 2013 to 28 February 2015, we conducted a prospective multi-centre observational cohort study of trauma patients in four Indian university hospitals, in three megacities, Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi. All adult patients presenting to the casualty department with a history of injury and who were admitted to inpatient care were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 30-days of admission. The sensitivity and specificity of each score to predict inpatient mortality within 30 days was assessed by the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Model fit for the performance of individual scoring systems was accomplished by using the Akaike Information criterion (AIC).ResultsIn a registry of 8791 adult trauma patients, we had a cohort of 7197 patients eligible for the study. 4091 (56.8%)patients had all five scores available and was the sample for a complete case analysis. Over a 30-day period, the scores (AUC) was TRISS (0.82), RTS (0.81), KTS (0.74), NISS (0.65) and ISS (0.62). RTS was the most parsimonious model with the lowest AIC score. Considering overall mortality, both physiologic scores (RTS, KTS) had better discrimination and goodness-of-fit than ISS or NISS. The ability of all Injury scores to predict early mortality (24 h) was better than late mortality (30 day).ConclusionOn-admission physiological scores outperformed the more expensive anatomy-based ISS and NISS. The retrospective nature of ISS and TRISS score calculations and incomplete imaging in LMICs precludes its use in the casualty department of LMICs. They will remain useful for outcome comparison across trauma centres. Physiological scores like the RTS and KTS will be the practical score to use in casualty departments in the urban Indian setting, to predict early trauma mortality and improve triage.     

Which AIS based scoring system is the best predictor of outcome in orthopaedic blunt trauma patients?

BACKGROUND: Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)-based systems-the Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and AISmax-are used to assess trauma patients. The merits of each in predicting outcome are controversial. METHODS: A large prospective database was used to assess their predictive capacity using receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: In all, 10,062 adult, blunt-trauma patients met the inclusion criteria. All systems were significant outcome predictors for sepsis, multiple organ failure (MOF), length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality (p < 0.0001). NISS was a significantly better predictor than the ISS for mortality (p < 0.0001). NISS was equivalent to the AISmax for mortality prediction and superior in patients with orthopaedic injuries. NISS was significantly better for sepsis, MOF, ICU stay, and total hospital stay (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: NISS is superior or equivalent to the ISS and AISmax for prediction of all investigated outcomes in a population of blunt trauma patients. As NISS is easier to calculate, its use is recommended to stratify patients for clinical and research purposes.     

The New Injury Severity Score: a more accurate predictor of in-hospital mortality than the Injury Severity Score

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) is a better predictor of mortality than the Injury Severity Score (ISS) in general and in subgroups according to age, penetrating trauma, and body region injured. METHODS: The study population consisted of 24,263 patients from three urban Level I trauma centers in the province of Quebec, Canada. Discrimination and calibration of NISS and ISS models were compared using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics. RESULTS: NISS showed better discrimination than ISS (area under the ROC curve = 0.827 vs. 0.819; p = 0.0006) and improved calibration (Hosmer-Leme-show = 62 vs. 112). The advantage of the NISS over the ISS was particularly evident among patients with head/neck injuries (area under the ROC curve = 0.819 vs. 0.784; p < 0.0001; Hosmer-Lemeshow = 59 vs. 350). CONCLUSION: The NISS is a more accurate predictor of in-hospital death than the ISS and should be chosen over the ISS for case-mix control in trauma research, especially in certain subpopulations such as head/neck-injured patients.     

The impact of the AIS 2005 revision on injury severity scores and clinical outcome measures

Background

The abbreviated injury scale (AIS) was updated in 2005 from the AIS 1998 version. The purpose of this study is to describe the effects of this change on injury severity scoring and outcome measures.

Materials and methods

Analyses were performed on all trauma patients consecutively admitted over a 6-month period at two geographically separate Level I trauma centers. Injuries were manually double-coded according to the AIS 05 and the AIS 98. Changes in AIS, ISS, and new ISS (NISS) were analysed using paired t-tests. Apparent differences in outcome by ISS strata (<16, 16-24, >24) were compared for AIS 05 versus AIS 98 using the Wald-type statistic. Lastly, the percent of patients with a change in ISS strata are reported.

Results

There were 2250 patients included in the study. Nearly half (46.4%) of AIS codes changed, resulting in a different AIS score for 18.9% of all codes. The mean ISS was significantly lower using the AIS 05 (11.7) versus the AIS 98 (13.3, p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean NISS was significantly lower (16.3 versus 18.7, p < 0.001). In the ISS strata 16-24 an apparent increase in mortality, length of stay, and percent of patients not discharged home was observed for the AIS 05 versus AIS 98. Changes in outcome measures for this stratum were as follows (AIS 98 versus AIS 05): mortality, 4.3% versus 7.7% (p = 0.002); hospital length of stay, 5.2 days versus 7.3 days (p < 0.001); percent of patients not discharged home, 39.2% versus 49.3% (p < 0.001). Finally, there was a 20.5% reduction in patients with an ISS ≥ 16 and a 26.2% reduction in patients with an ISS ≥ 25 using the AIS 05.

Conclusions

The AIS revision had a significant impact on overall injury severity measures, clinical outcome measures, and percent of patients in each ISS strata. Therefore, the AIS revision affects the ability to directly compare data generated using AIS 05 and AIS 98 which has implications in trauma research, reimbursement and ACS accreditation.     

The modified rapid emergency medicine score: A novel trauma triage tool to predict in-hospital mortality

BackgroundTrauma systems currently rely on imperfect and subjective tools to prioritize responses and resources, thus there is a critical need to develop a more accurate trauma severity score. Our objective was to modify the Rapid Emergency Medicine (REMS) Score for the trauma population and test its accuracy as a predictor of in-hospital mortality when compared to other currently used scores, including the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the “Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Arterial Pressure” (MGAP) score, and the Shock Index (SI) score.MethodsThe two-part study design involved both a modification step and a validation step. The first step incorporated a retrospective analysis of a local trauma database (3680 patients) where three components of REMS were modified to more accurately represent the trauma population. Using clinical judgment and goodness-of-fit tests, systolic blood pressure was substituted for mean arterial pressure, the weighting of age was reduced, and the weighting of Glasgow Coma Scale was increased. The second part comprised validating the new modified REMS (mREMS) score retrospectively on a U.S. National Trauma Databank (NTDB) that included 429,711 patients admitted with trauma in 2012. The discriminate power of mREMS was compared to other trauma scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve.ResultsOverall the mREMS score with an AUC of 0.967 (95% CI: 0.963–0.971) was demonstrated to be higher than RTS (AUC 0.959 [95% CI: 0.955–0.964]), ISS (AUC 0.780 [95% CI 0.770–0.791]), MGAP (AUC 0.964 [95% CI: 0.959–0.968]), and SI (AUC 0.670 [95% CI: 0.650–0.690]) in predicting in-hospital mortality on the NTDB.ConclusionIn the trauma population, mREMS is an accurate predictor of in-hospital mortality, outperforming other used scores. Simple and objective, mREMS may hold value in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting in order to guide trauma team responses.     

Different AIS triplets: Different mortality predictions in identical ISS and NISS

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated different mortality predictions for identical Injury Severity Scores (ISS) from different Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) triplets. This study elaborates in both scope and volume producing results of a larger magnitude, applicable to specific injury subgroups of blunt or penetrating, traumatic brain injury, various age groups, and replicated on NISS. METHODS: All patients hospitalized after trauma at 10 hospitals, with ISS/NISS (new ISS) generated by two AIS triplets, excluding patients with isolated minor or moderate injuries to a single body region were studied. Patients were separated into two groups based on the different triplets. Inpatient-mortality rates were calculated for each triplet group. Odds ratios were calculated to estimate the risk of dying in one triplet group as compared with the other. The chi test determined whether the difference in mortality rate between the two groups was significantly different. Differences were further explored for various subgroups. RESULTS: There were 35,827 patients who had ISS/NISS scores generated by two different AIS triplets. Significant differences in death rates were noted between triplet groups forming identical ISS/NISS. Odds ratio for being in the second group (always containing the higher AIS score) ranged from 2.3 to 7.4. CONCLUSIONS: ISS and NISS that are formed by different AIS triplets have significantly different inpatient-mortality rates. The triplet with the higher AIS score has higher inpatient-mortality rates, overall and in several sub-populations of varying vulnerability. The comparison of populations and the interpretation of ISS/NISS based outcome data should take this important information into account and the components of AIS triplets creating each ISS and NISS should be reported.     

NISS在肾损伤治疗方案选择及预后判断中的意义

目的：探讨新损伤严重度评分（NISS）在肾损伤治疗方案选择及预后判断中的意义。方法：采用NISS对186例肾损伤患者治疗方案的选择及转归进行回顾性分析及评估。结果：开放性损伤手术探查率高于闭合性损伤（P〈0．01）,开放性损伤与闭合性损伤NISS差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;NISS评分与治疗方案有关,手术率及肾切除率随NISS增加而增加,各组间差异有统计学意义（均P〈0．05）;随损伤部位数增加,损伤程度加重,NISS值升高,死亡率也升高（P〈0．05）。结论：NISS总分〈15分的伤情一般较轻,经保守治疗多可痊愈;NISS总分在15～34分之间,损伤程度为中度,推荐积极手术抢救;NISS总分在35～49分多为重型复合伤,建议在纠正休克及改善全身情况的基础上选择手术治疗,总分≥50分者不建议手术。     

PHYSIOLOGICAL PREDICTORS OF DEATH IN EXSANGUINATING TRAUMA PATIENTS UNDERGOING CONVENTIONAL TRAUMA SURGERY

Background : Severe truncal multi trauma patients often develop coagulopathy, acidosis and hypothermia that makes major reparative trauma surgery dangerous. It was aimed to try to develop physiological indicators that would predict a poor outcome when conventional reparative surgery was applied. These indicators may help in the decision to switch from conventional reparative surgery to surgery limited to the control of major haemorrhage or organ disruption: so-called ‘damage-control’ surgery. Method : A retrospective review was conducted of 40 patients with severe multivisceral trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 35) who were admitted to the intensive care unit at Waikato Hospital and who underwent conventional reparative surgery. Results : Survival was strongly associated with base deficit (BD), core temperature and ISS. Using multiple logistic regression on these indices, outcome could be predicted with 92.5% accuracy (sensitivity = 93%, specificity = 92%, positive predictive value for death = 96%). Either severe hypothermia (< 33°C) or severe acidosis (BD > 12 mEq/L), or a combination of moderate core temperature < 35.5°C, and a BD of > 5 mEq/L were strong predictors of death if conventional reparative surgery was practised. Conclusions : At the abovementioned levels of physiological compromise, patient survival after conventional trauma surgery can be predicted to be very unlikely. Damage-control measures would be worth attempting.     

Factors influencing pediatric Injury Severity Score and Glasgow Coma Scale in pediatric automobile crashes: results from the Crash Injury Research Engineering Network

Background/Purpose

Motor vehicle crashes account for more than 50% of pediatric injuries. Triage of pediatric patients to appropriate centers can be based on the crash/injury characteristics. Pediatric motor vehicle crash/injury characteristics can be determined from an in vitro laboratory using child crash dummies. However, to date, no detailed data with respect to outcomes and crash mechanism have been presented with a pediatric in vivo model.

Methods

The Crash Injury Research Engineering Network is comprised of 10 level 1 trauma centers. Crashes were examined with regard to age, crash severity (ΔV), crash direction, restraint use, and airbag deployment. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed with Injury Severity Score (ISS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as outcomes. Standard age groupings (0-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-18) were used. The database is biases toward a survivor population with few fatalities.

Results

Four hundred sixty-one motor vehicle crashes with 2500 injuries were analyzed (242 boys, 219 girls). Irrespective of age, ΔV > 30 mph resulted in increased ISS and decreased GCS (eg, for 0-4 years, ΔV < 30: ISS = 10, GCS = 13.5 vs ΔV > 30: ISS = 19.5, GCS = 10.6; P < .007, < .002, respectively). Controlling for ΔV, children in lateral crashes had increased ISS and decreased GCS versus those in frontal crashes. Airbag deployment was protective for children 15 to 18 years old and resulted in a lower ISS and higher GCS (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-4.6). Front-seat passengers suffered more severe (ISS > 15) injuries than did backseat passengers (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-3.4). A trend was noted for children younger than 12 years sitting in the front seat to have increased ISS and decreased GCS with airbag deployment but was limited by case number.

Conclusion

A reproducible pattern of increased ISS and lower GCS characterized by high severity, lateral crashes in children was noted. Further analysis of the specific injuries as a function and the crash characteristic can help guide management and prevention strategies.     

Interest of the MGAP score on in-hospital trauma patients: Comparison with TRISS,ISS and NISS scores

Trauma scoring systems were created to predict mortality and enhance triage capabilities. However, efficacy of scoring systems to predict mortality and accuracy of originally reported severity thresholds remains uncertain. A single-center, retrospective study was conducted at University of Virginia (UVA), an American College of Surgeons verified Level I trauma center. We compared four scoring systems: MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and arterial pressure), Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and Trauma Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS) to predict in-hospital mortality and disposition from the emergency department to higher acuity level of care including mortality (i.e. operating room, intensive care unit, morgue) versus standard floor admission using area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristic analysis. Second, we examined sensitivity of these scores at standard thresholds to determine if adjustments were needed to minimize under-triage (sensitivity ≥95%). TRISS was the best predictor of mortality in a cohort of n = 16,265 with AUC of 0.920 (95% CI: 0.911–0.929, p<0.0001), followed by MGAP with AUC of 0.900 (95% CI: 0.889–0.911, p<0.0001), and finally ISS and NISS (0.830 (95% CI: 0.814–0.847) and 0.827 (95% CI: 0.809–0.844) respectively). NISS was the best predictor of high acuity disposition with an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI: 0.721–0.736, p<0.0001), followed by ISS with AUC of 0.714 (95% CI: 0.707–0.722, p<0.0001), and finally TRISS and MGAP (0.673 (95% CI: 0.665–0.682) and 0.613 (95% CI: 0.604–0.621) respectively (p<0.0001). At historic thresholds, no scoring system displayed adequate sensitivity to predict mortality, with values ranging from 73% for ISS to 80% for NISS. In conclusion, in the reported study cohort, TRISS was the best predictor of mortality while NISS was the best predictor of high acuity disposition. We also stress updating scoring system thresholds to achieve ideal sensitivity, and investigating how scoring systems derived to predict mortality perform when predicting indicators of morbidity such as disposition from the emergency department.     

The New Injury Severity Score and the evaluation of pediatric trauma.

BACKGROUND: To compare the effectiveness of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) in predicting mortality in pediatric trauma patients. METHODS: NISS, the sum of the squares of a patient's three highest Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (regardless of body region), were calculated for 9,151 patients treated at four regional pediatric trauma centers and compared with previously calculated ISS values. The power of the two scoring systems to predict mortality was gauged through comparison of misclassification rates, receiver operating characteristic curves, and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistics. RESULTS: Although there were significant differences in mean NISS and ISS values for each hospital, differences in the predictive abilities of the two scoring systems were insignificant, even when analysis was restricted to the subgroup of patients with severe or penetrating injuries. CONCLUSION: The significant differences in the predictive abilities of the ISS and NISS reported in studies of adult trauma patients were not seen in this review of pediatric trauma patients.     

New injury severity score (NISS) outperforms injury severity score (ISS) in the evaluation of severe blunt trauma patients

Purpose: The injury severity score (ISS) and new injury severity score (NISS) have been widely used in trauma evaluation. However, which scoring system is better in trauma outcome prediction is still disputed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the value of the two scoring systems in predicting trauma outcomes, including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU length of stay. Methods: The data were collected retrospectively from three hospitals in Zhejiang province, China. The comparisons of NISS and ISS in predicting outcomes were performed by using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics. Results: A total of 1825 blunt trauma patients were enrolled in our study. Finally, 1243 patients were admitted to ICU, and 215 patients died before discharge. The ISS and NISS were equivalent in predicting mortality (area under ORC curve [AUC]: 0.886 vs. 0.887, p ¼ 0.9113). But for the patients with ISS 25, NISS showed better performance in predicting mortality. NISS was also significantly better than ISS in predicting ICU admission and prolonged ICU length of stay. Conclusion: NISS outperforms ISS in predicting the outcomes for severe blunt trauma and can be an essential supplement of ISS. Considering the convenience of NISS in calculation, it is advantageous to promote NISS in China’s primary hospitals.     

Comparison of the New Injury Severity Score and the Injury Severity Score

BACKGROUND: The New Injury Severity Score (NISS) was proposed in 1997 to replace the Injury Severity Score (ISS) because it is more sensitive for mortality. We aim to test whether this is true in our patients. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of data from 6,231 consecutive patients over 3 years in the trauma registry of a Level I trauma center studying outcome, ISS, and NISS. RESULTS: Misclassification rates were 3.97% for the NISS and 4.35% for the ISS. The receiver operating characteristic curve areas were 0.936 and 0.94, respectively. Neither the ISS nor the NISS were well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic, 36.11 and 49.28, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The NISS should not replace the ISS, as they share similar accuracy and calibration.     

Major influence of interobserver reliability on polytrauma identification with the Injury Severity Score (ISS): Time for a centralised coding in trauma registries?

ObjectiveThe Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) find increasingly widespread use to assess trauma burden and to perform interhospital benchmarking through trauma registries. Since 2015, public resource allocation in Switzerland shall even be derived from such data. As every trauma centre is responsible for its own coding and data input, this study aims at evaluating interobserver reliability of AIS and ISS coding.MethodsInterobserver reliability of the AIS and ISS is analysed from a cohort of 50 consecutive severely injured patients treated in 2012 at our institution, coded retrospectively by 3 independent and specifically trained observers.ResultsConsidering a cutoff ISS ≥ 16, only 38/50 patients (76%) were uniformly identified as polytraumatised or not. Increasing the cut off to ≥20, this increased to 41/50 patients (82%). A difference in the AIS of ≥ 1 was present in 261 (16%) of possible codes. Excluding the vast majority of uninjured body regions, uniformly identical AIS severity values were attributed in 67/193 (35%) body regions, or 318/579 (55%) possible observer pairings.ConclusionInjury severity all too often is neither identified correctly nor consistently when using the AIS. This leads to wrong identification of severely injured patients using the ISS. Improving consistency of coding through centralisation is recommended before scores based on the AIS are to be used for interhospital benchmarking and resource allocation in the treatment of severely injured patients.     

A Comparison Study of the Injury Score Models

Abstract Background: A central component to the statistical analysis of trauma care is the probability of survival model, which predicts outcome of the trauma event taking into account various anatomical and physiological factors. One of the key input information to the survival model is the injury score which forms the cornerstone of trauma epidemiology. There are many scoring systems currently in use, and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) as the anatomical component of the injury in the probability of survival model is a widely used one. This paper examines the possibility of representing the anatomical component of the trauma using different injury severity scoring methods described in the literature. Material and methods: The dataset used consists of 75,371 cases from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). TARN regroups 110 hospitals in the UK and it is the largest European trauma registry. Various limitations of ISS have been described in the literature and an investigation into other scoring methods, which could be calculated from the available data, was proposed. Using the available database, the alternative injury scoring methods can be calculated and their use within a Trauma score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) probability of survival model is assessed. Results: The current score performs reasonably well, but there is some improvement in calibration associated with introducing a score, which takes into account body-region locations of all injuries.