Dataset Information

Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association with trauma center need (TCN).

Methods

Scene patients 16 years and older in the NTDB during 2017 were included. National Field Triage Guidelines anatomic criteria were classified based on EMS documentation and ICD-10 diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was TCN, a composite of Injury Severity Score greater than 15, intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or emergency department death. Prevalence of anatomic criteria and their association with TCN was compared in EMS-identified versus ICD-10-coded criteria. Diagnostic performance to predict TCN was compared.

Results

There were 669,795 patients analyzed. The ICD-10 coding demonstrated a greater prevalence of injury detection. Emergency medical service-identified versus ICD-10-coded anatomic criteria were less sensitive (31% vs. 59%), but more specific (91% vs. 73%) and accurate (71% vs. 68%) for predicting TCN. Emergency medical service providers demonstrated a marked reduction in false positives (9% vs. 27%) but higher rates of false negatives (69% vs. 42%) in predicting TCN from anatomic criteria. Odds of TCN were significantly greater for EMS-identified criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.46-4.58) versus ICD-10 coding (adjusted odds ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.71-3.79). Of EMS-identified injuries, penetrating injury, flail chest, and two or more proximal long bone fractures were associated with greater TCN than ICD-10 coding.

Conclusion

When evaluating the anatomic criteria, EMS demonstrate greater specificity and accuracy in predicting TCN, as well as reduced false positives compared with ICD-10 coding. Emergency medical services identification is less sensitive for anatomic criteria; however, EMS identify the most clinically significant injuries. Further study is warranted to identify the most clinically important anatomic triage criteria to improve our triage protocols.

Level of evidence

Care management, Level IV; Prognostic, Level III.

SUBMITTER: Deeb AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8243859 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria.

Deeb Andrew-Paul AP Phelos Heather M HM Peitzman Andrew B AB Billiar Timothy R TR Sperry Jason L JL Brown Joshua B JB

The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 20210601 6

<h4>Background</h4>The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association wi ...[more]

PMID: 34016920

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma sets national targets for the accuracy of field trauma triage at ≥95% sensitivity and ≥65% specificity, yet the cost-effectiveness of realizing these goals is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of current field trauma triage practices compared with triage strategies consistent with the national targets.Study designThis was a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 79,937 injured adults transported by 48 emergency medical services agencies to 105 trauma and nontrauma hospitals in 6 regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. Incremental differences in survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (costs per QALY gained) were estimated for each triage strategy during a 1-year and lifetime horizon using a decision analytic Markov model. We considered an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold of <$100,000 to be cost-effective.ResultsFor these 6 regions, a high-sensitivity triage strategy consistent with national trauma policy (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 17.1%) would cost $1,317,333 per QALY gained, and current triage practices (sensitivity 87.2%, specificity 64.0%) cost $88,000 per QALY gained, compared with a moderate sensitivity strategy (sensitivity 71.2%, specificity 66.5%). Refining emergency medical services transport patterns by triage status improved cost-effectiveness. At the trauma-system level, a high-sensitivity triage strategy would save 3.7 additional lives per year at a 1-year cost of $8.78 million, and a moderate sensitivity approach would cost 5.2 additional lives and save $781,616 each year.ConclusionsA high-sensitivity approach to field triage consistent with national trauma policy is not cost-effective. The most cost-effective approach to field triage appears closely tied to triage specificity and adherence to triage-based emergency medical services transport practices.

Project description:BackgroundIn Sweden, the rapid emergency triage and treatment system (RETTS-A) is used in the pre-hospital setting. With RETTS-A, patients triaged to the lowest level could safely be referred to a lower level of care. The national early warning score (NEWS) has also shown promising results internationally. However, a knowledge gap in optimal triage in the pre-hospital setting persists. This study aimed to evaluate RETTS-A performance, compare RETTS-A with NEWS and NEWS 2, and evaluate the emergency medical service (EMS) nurse's field assessment with the physician's final hospital diagnosis.MethodsA prospective, observational study including patients (≥16 years old) transported to hospital by the Gothenburg EMS in 2016. Three comparisons were made: 1) Combined RETTS-A levels orange and red (high acuity) compared to a predefined reference emergency, 2) RETTS-A high acuity compared to NEWS and NEWS 2 score ≥ 5, and 3) Classification of pre-hospital nurse's field assessment compared to hospital physician's diagnosis. Outcomes of the time-sensitive conditions, mortality and hospitalisation were examined. The statistical tests included Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test, and several binary classification tests were determined.ResultsOverall, 4465 patients were included (median age 69 years; 52% women). High acuity RETTS-A triage showed a sensitivity of 81% in prediction of the reference patient with a specificity of 64%. Sensitivity in detecting a time-sensitive condition was highest with RETTS-A (73%), compared with NEWS (37%) and NEWS 2 (35%), and specificity was highest with NEWS 2 (83%) when compared with RETTS-A (54%). The negative predictive value was higher in RETTS-A (94%) compared to NEWS (91%) and NEWS 2 (92%). Eleven per cent of the final diagnoses were classified as time-sensitive while the nurse's field assessment was appropriate in 84% of these cases.ConclusionsIn the pre-hospital triage of EMS patients, RETTS-A showed sensitivity that was twice as high as that of both NEWS and NEWS 2 in detecting time-sensitive conditions, at the expense of lower specificity. However, the proportion of correctly classified low risk triaged patients (green/yellow) was higher in RETTS-A. The nurse's field assessment of time-sensitive conditions was appropriate in the majority of cases.

Project description:BackgroundNorwegian hospitals employed individual trauma triage criteria until 2015 when nationwide criteria were implemented. There is a lack of empirical evidence regarding adherence to Norwegian national criteria for activation of the trauma team (NTrC) and the decision-making processes regarding trauma team activation (TTA) within Norwegian trauma hospitals. The objectives of this study were to investigate institutional adherence to the NTrC and to investigate similarities and differences in the decision-making process leading to TTA in Norwegian trauma hospitals.MethodsA digital semi-structured questionnaire regarding adherence to criteria, TTA decision-making and criteria documentation was distributed to all Norwegian trauma hospitals (n = 38) in the spring of 2022. Contact details of trauma coordinators and registrars were provided by the Norwegian Trauma Registry secretariat. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted at the investigator's discretion in cases of non-respondents or need to clarify answers.ResultsThirty-eight trauma hospitals were invited to answer the survey, where 35 hospitals responded (92%), making 35 the denominator of the results. Thirty-four (97.1%) hospitals stated that they followed NTrC. Thirty-three (94.3%) of the responding hospitals provided documentation of their criteria in use, of which twenty-eight (80%) of responding hospitals adhered to the NTrC. Three (8.6%) hospitals employed a tiered TTA approach with different sized teams. In addition four hospitals (11.4%) used specialized teams to meet the needs of defined patient groups (e.g. geriatric patients, traumatic brain injury). Twenty-one (60%) of the responding hospitals had written guidelines on who could perform TTA and in 18 hospitals (51.4%) TTA could be performed by pre-hospital personnel. Twenty-three (65.7%) of the hospitals documented which criteria that were used for TTA.ConclusionThere is good adherence to the national criteria for activation of the trauma team among Norwegian trauma hospitals after implementation of national guidelines. Individual hospitals argue the use of certain local criteria and trauma team activation decision-making processes to increase their precision in specific patient populations and demographics. Further steps should be done to reduce the variation in TTA decision-making processes among hospitals and improve documentation quality.

Project description:BackgroundPre-hospital identification of major trauma in elderly patients is key for delivery of optimal care, however triage of this group is challenging. Elderly-specific triage criteria may be valuable. This systematic review aimed to summarise the published pre-hospital elderly-specific trauma triage tools and evaluate their sensitivity and specificity and associated clinical outcomes.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched using predetermined criteria (PROSPERO: CRD42019140879). Two authors independently assessed search results, performed data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.Results801 articles were screened and 11 studies met eligibility criteria, including 1,332,300 patients from exclusively USA populations. There were eight unique elderly-specific triage criteria reported. Most studies retrospectively applied criteria to trauma databases, with few reporting real-world application. The Ohio Geriatric Triage Criteria was reported in three studies. Age cut-off ranged from 55 to 70 years with ≥ 65 most frequently reported. All reported existing adult criteria with modified physiological parameters using higher thresholds for systolic blood pressure and Glasgow coma scale, although the values used varied. Three criteria added co-morbidity or anti-coagulant/anti-platelet use considerations. Modifications to anatomical or mechanism of injury factors were used by only one triage criteria. Criteria sensitivity ranged from 44 to 93%, with a median of 86.3%, whilst specificity was generally poor (median 54%). Scant real-world data showed an increase in patients meeting triage criteria, but minimal changes to patient transport destination and mortality. All studies were at risk of bias and assessed of "very low" or "low" quality.ConclusionsThere are several published elderly-specific pre-hospital trauma triage tools in clinical practice, all developed and employed in the USA. Consensus exists for higher thresholds for physiological parameters, however there was variability in age-cut offs, triage criteria content, and tool sensitivity and specificity. Although sensitivity was improved over corresponding 'adult' criteria, specificity remained poor. There is a paucity of published real-world data examining the effect on patient care and clinical outcomes of elderly-specific triage criteria. There is uncertainty over the optimal elderly triage tool and further study is required to better inform practice and improve patient outcomes.

Project description:The emergency medical services (EMS) cover initiatives and services established to provide essential medical assistance in situations of acute illness. Triage-methods for systematic prioritizing of patients according to how urgent patients need care, including triage of requests of acute medical treatment, are adopted in hospitals as well as in the pre-hospital settings. This systematic review searched to identify available research on the effects of validated triage systems for use in the pre-hospital EMS on health outcomes, patient safety, patient satisfaction, user-friendliness, resource use, goal achievement, and the quality on the information exchange between the different settings of the EMS (for example the quality of documentation). The specific research questions were: 1) are pre-hospital triage systems effective, 2) is one triage system more effective than others, and 3) is it effective to use the same triage system in two or more settings of the EMS-chain? We conducted a systematic literature search in nine databases up to June 2012. We searched for systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITSs). Two persons independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and the same persons read all possibly relevant full text articles and rated the methodological quality where relevant. The literature search identified 11011 unique references. A total of 120 publications were read in full text. None of the identified articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria, thus our question on the effects of pre-hospital triage systems, if one system is better than other systems, and the question on effects of using the same triage system in two or more settings of the EMS, remain unanswered. We conclude that there is an evidence gap regarding the effects of pre-hospital triage systems and the effects of using the same triage system in two or more settings of the EMS. The finding does not mean that pre-hospital triage systems are ineffective, but that we lack knowledge about potential effects. When introducing a new assessment tool in the EMS, it is timely to conduct well-planned studies aimed to assess the effect.

Project description:BackgroundImproved trauma management can reduce the time between injury and medical interventions, thus decreasing morbidity and mortality. Triage at the emergency department is essential to ensure prioritization and timely assessment of injured patients. The aim of the present study was to investigate how a lack of formal triage system impacts timely intervention and mortality in a sub-Saharan referral hospital. Further, the study attempts to assess potential benefits of triage towards efficient management of trauma patients in one middle income country.MethodsA prospective descriptive study was conducted. Adult trauma patients admitted to the emergency department during an 8-month period at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya, were included. Mode of arrival and vital parameters were registered. Variables included in the analysis were Injury Severity Score, time before physician's assessment, length of hospital stay, and mortality. The patients were retrospectively categorized according to the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS) from patient records.ResultsA total of 571 patients were analyzed, with a mean Injury Severity Score of 12.2 (SD 7.7) with a mean length of stay of 11.6 (SD 18.3) days. The mortality rate was 1.8%. The results obtained in this study illustrate that trauma patients admitted to the emergency department at Eldoret are not assessed in a timely fashion, and the time frame recommendations postulated by RETTS are not adhered to. Assessment of patients according to the triage algorithm used revealed a significantly higher average Injury Severity Score in the red category than in the other color categories.ConclusionThe results from this study clearly illustrate a lack of correct prioritization of patients in relation to the need for timely assessment. This is further demonstrated by the retrospective triage classification of patients, which identified patients with high ISS as in urgent need of care. Since no significant difference in to time to assessment regardless of injury severity was observed, the need for a well-functioning triage system is apparent.

Project description:National benchmarks for trauma triage sensitivity (?95%) and specificity (?50%) have not been rigorously evaluated across broad populations of injured patients. We evaluated the impact of different field triage schemes for identifying seriously injured patients across a range of sensitivity values. Impact metrics included specificity and number of undertriaged and overtriaged patients compared with current triage practices.This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children and adults transported by 48 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies to 105 hospitals in 6 regions of the Western United States from 2006 through 2008. Hospital outcomes were probabilistically linked to EMS records through trauma registries, state discharge databases, and state emergency department databases. The primary outcome was an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or greater. We evaluated 40 field predictor variables, including 31 current field triage criteria, using classification and regression tree analysis and cross-validation to generate estimates for sensitivity and specificity.A total of 89,261 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS providers during the 3-year period, of whom 5,711 (6.4%) had ISS of 16 or greater. As the 95% sensitivity target for triage was approached (from the current value of 87.5%), decision tree complexity increased, specificity decreased (from 62.8% to 18.7%), and the number of triage-positive patients without serious injury doubled (67,927 vs. 31,104). Analyses restricted to children and older adults were similar. The most consistent modification to the current triage algorithm to increase sensitivity without a major decrease in specificity was altering the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score cutoff point from 13 or less to 14 or less (sensitivity increase to 90.4%).Reaching the field triage sensitivity benchmark of 95% would require a large decrease in specificity (increase in overtriage). A 90% sensitivity target seems more realistic and may be obtainable by modest changes to the current triage algorithm.

Project description:BackgroundPrehospital trauma triage is essential to get the right patient to the right hospital. However, the national field triage guidelines proposed by the American College of Surgeons have proven to be relatively insensitive when identifying severe traumas.ObjectiveThis study aimed to build a prehospital triage model to predict severe trauma and enhance the performance of the national field triage guidelines.MethodsThis was a multisite prediction study, and the data were extracted from the National Trauma Data Bank between 2017 and 2019. All patients with injury, aged 16 years of age or older, and transported by ambulance from the injury scene to any trauma center were potentially eligible. The data were divided into training, internal, and external validation sets of 672,309; 288,134; and 508,703 patients, respectively. As the national field triage guidelines recommended, age, 7 vital signs, and 8 injury patterns at the prehospital stage were included as candidate variables for model development. Outcomes were severe trauma with an Injured Severity Score ≥16 (primary) and critical resource use within 24 hours of emergency department arrival (secondary). The triage model was developed using an extreme gradient boosting model and Shapley additive explanation analysis. The model's accuracy regarding discrimination, calibration, and clinical benefit was assessed.ResultsAt a fixed specificity of 0.5, the model showed a sensitivity of 0.799 (95% CI 0.797-0.801), an undertriage rate of 0.080 (95% CI 0.079-0.081), and an overtriage rate of 0.743 (95% CI 0.742-0.743) for predicting severe trauma. The model showed a sensitivity of 0.774 (95% CI 0.772-0.776), an undertriage rate of 0.158 (95% CI 0.157-0.159), and an overtriage rate of 0.609 (95% CI 0.608-0.609) when predicting critical resource use, fixed at 0.5 specificity. The triage model's areas under the curve were 0.755 (95% CI 0.753-0.757) for severe trauma prediction and 0.736 (95% CI 0.734-0.737) for critical resource use prediction. The triage model's performance was better than those of the Glasgow Coma Score, Prehospital Index, revised trauma score, and the 2011 national field triage guidelines RED criteria. The model's performance was consistent in the 2 validation sets.ConclusionsThe prehospital triage model is promising for predicting severe trauma and achieving an undertriage rate of <10%. Moreover, machine learning enhances the performance of field triage guidelines.

Dataset Information

Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Publications

Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets