Accuracy of pre-hospital triage tools for major trauma: a systematic review with meta-analysis and net clinical benefit (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 2018
Background In mass casualty incidents (MCI), death usually occurs within the first few hours and thus early transfer to a trauma centre can be crucial in selected cases. However, most triage systems designed to prioritize the transfer to hospital of these patients do not assess the need for surgery, in part due to inconclusive evidence regarding the value of such an assessment. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of a new triage system-the Prehospital Advanced Triage Method (META)-to identify victims who could benefit from urgent surgical assessment in case of MCI. Methods Retrospective, descriptive, observational study of a multipurpose cohort of patients included in the severe trauma registry of the Gregorio Marañón University General Hospital (Spain) between June 1993 and December 2011. All data were prospectively evaluated. All patients were evaluated with the META system to determine whether they met the criteria for urgent transfer. The META defines patients in need of urgent surgical assessment: (a) All penetrating injuries to head, neck, torso and extremities proximal to elbow or knee, (b) Open pelvic fracture, (c) Closed pelvic fracture with mechanical or haemodynamic instability and (d) Blunt torso trauma with haemodynamic instability. Patients who fulfilled these criteria were designated as "Urgent Evacuation for Surgical Assessment" (UESA) cases; all other cases were designated as non-UESA. The following variables were assessed: patient status at the scene; severity scales [RTS, Shock index, MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, pressure), GCS]; need for surgery and/or interventional procedure to control bleeding (UESA); and mortality. The two groups (UESA vs. non-UESA) were then compared. Results A total of 1882 cases from the database were included in the study. Mean age was 39.2 years and most (77%) patients were male. UESA patients presented significantly worse on-scene hemodynamic parameters (systolic blood pressure and heart rate) and greater injury severity (RTS, shock index, and MGAP scales). No differences were observed for respiratory rate, need for orotracheal intubation, or GCS scores. The anatomical injuries of patients in the UESA group were less severe but these patients had a greater need for urgent surgery and higher mortality rates. Conclusion These findings suggest that the META triage classification system could be beneficial to help identify patients with severe trauma and/or in need of urgent surgical assessment at the scene of injury in case of MCI. These findings demonstrate that, in this cohort, the META fulfils the purpose for which it was designed.
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2007
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 overtriage 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.
Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors, 2018
Prehospital triage of the seriously injured patient is fraught with challenges, and trauma scoring systems in current triage guidelines warrant further investigation. The primary objective of this study was to assess the correlation of the physiologically based Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and MGAP score (mechanism of injury, Glasgow Coma Scale, age, blood pressure) with the anatomically based Injury Severity Score (ISS). The secondary objectives for this study were to compare the accuracy of the MGAP score and the RTS for the prediction of in-hospital mortality for trauma patients. This study was a retrospective cohort including 10 years of patient data in a large single-center trauma registry at a primary adult resource center (Level I) for trauma patients. Participants included adults (age ≥18 years). The primary outcome measure was injury severity (measured by ISS) and a secondary analysis compared the RTS and MGAP for the prediction of patient mortality. Descriptive statistics we...
JAMA Network Open
ImportanceAdequate prehospital triage is pivotal to enable optimal care in inclusive trauma systems and reduce avoidable mortality, lifelong disabilities, and costs. A model has been developed to improve the prehospital allocation of patients with traumatic injuries and was incorporated in an application (app) to be implemented in prehospital practice.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the implementation of a trauma triage (TT) intervention with an app and prehospital mistriage among adult trauma patients.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis population-based, prospective quality improvement study was conducted in 3 of the 11 Dutch trauma regions (27.3%), with full coverage of the corresponding emergency medical services (EMS) regions participating in this study. Participants included adult patients (age ≥16 years) with traumatic injuries who were transported by ambulance between February 1, 2015, and October 31, 2019, from the scene of injury to any emergency department i...
Reliability and validity of the Toowoomba adult trauma triage tool: a Queensland, Australia study
Accident and Emergency Nursing, 2004
In Australia a nationally adopted five tiered triage scale called the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS) is used for the purpose of differentiating patient acuity levels for all patients that present to an Emergency Department (ED). The scale was formulated with the aim of promoting a standardized approach to triage. Numerous studies now suggest that the ATS has not been successful in achieving this intention. The Toowoomba Adult Trauma Triage Tool (TATTT) seeks to address this deficiency by providing a reproducible, reliable and valid method of triage categorisation, albeit in a select group of patients.
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Prehospital trauma care includes on-scene assessments, essential treatment, and facilitating transfer to an appropriate trauma center to deliver optimal care for trauma patients. While the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START), Revised Triage Sieve (rTS), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) tools are user-friendly in a prehospital setting, there is currently no standardized on-scene triage protocol in Thailand Emergency Medical Service (EMS). Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the precision of these tools (SI, rSIG, and NEWS) in predicting the severity of trauma patients who are transferred to the emergency department (ED). Methods: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional and diagnostic research conducted on trauma patients transferred by EMS to the ED of Ramathibodi Hospital, a university-affiliated super tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2015 to September 2022. We compared the on-scene triage tool (SI, rSIG, and NEWS) and ED triage tool (Emergency Severity Index) parameters, massive transfusion protocol (MTP), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission with the area under ROC (univariable analysis) and diagnostic odds ratio (multivariable logistic regression analysis). The optimal cutoff threshold for the best parameter was determined by selecting the value that produced the highest area under the ROC curve. Results: A total of 218 patients were traumatic patients transported by EMS to the ED, out of which 161 were classified as ESI levels 1-2, while the remaining 57 patients were categorized as levels 3-5 on the ESI triage scale. We found that NEWS was a more accurate triage tool to discriminate the severity of trauma patients than rSIG and SI. The area under the ROC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.70-0.79) (OR 18.98, 95% CI 1.06-337.25), 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.17-18.09) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.52-0.65) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-1.62), respectively (P-value <0.001). The cut point of NEWS to discriminate ESI levels 1-2 and levels 3-5 was >6 points. Conclusion: NEWS is the best on-scene triage screening tool to predict the severity at the emergency department, massive transfusion protocol (MTP), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission compared with other triage tools SI and rSIG.
Field triage of trauma patients: Improving on the Prehospital Index
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2002
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the predictive ability of the Prehospital Index (PHI) in identifying injury severity and to develop a trauma triage scale that incorporates, along with the PHI, a subset of time independent variables to improve the predictive ability of the PHI-based triage instrument. This study included 1,291 trauma patients treated in Montreal, Canada. The developed trauma triage protocol was based on logistic regression analysis, in which the model that predicts the data best was selected by using Bayesian information criterion. The selected regression model included the variables age, body region injured, mechanism of injury, comorbidity, and PHI. This algorithm was a substantial improvement in detecting major versus nonmajor injuries (major injury defined based on death, intensive care unit admission, and surgery intervention) over the PHI alone area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.76 v 0.66, P < .05). Considering time independent variables could lead to better injury triage decisions. (Am J Emerg Med 2002;20:170-176. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.)
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 2018
Background The TraumaRegister DGU ® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU) enables the participating hospitals to perform quality management. For that purpose, nine so-called audit filters have existed, since its foundation, which, inter alia, is listed in the Annual Report. The objective of this study effort is a revision of these quality indicators with the aim of developing pertinent new and reliable quality indicators for the management of severely injured patients. Materials and methods Apart from indicators already used at national and international levels, a systematic review of the literature revealed further potential key figures for quality of the management of severely injured patients. The latter were evaluated by an interdisciplinary and interprofessional group of experts using a standardized QUALIFY process to assess their suitability as a quality indicator. Results By means of the review of the literature, 39 potential indicators could be identified. 9 and 14 indicators, respectively, were identified in existing trauma registries (TR-DGU and TARN), 17 in the ATLS ® training concept, and 57 in the S3 guideline on the treatment of polytrauma/severe injuries. The exclusion of duplicates and the limitation to indicators that can be collected using the TR-DGU Version 2015 data set resulted in a total of 43 indicators to be reviewed. For each of the 43 indicators, 13 quality criteria were assessed. A consensus was achieved in 305 out of 559 individual assessments. With 13 quality criteria assessed and 43 indicators correspond this to a relative consensus value of 54.6%. None of the indicators achieved a consensus in all 13 quality criteria assessed. The following 13 indicators achieved a consensus in at least 9 quality criteria: time between hospital admission and WBCT, mortality, administration of tranexamic acid to bleeding patients, use of CCT with GCS > 14, time until first emergency surgical intervention (7-item list in the TR-DGU), time until surgical intervention for penetrating trauma, application of pelvic sling belt (prehospital), capnometry (etCO 2) in intubated patients, time until CCT with GCS < 15, time until surgery for hemorrhagic shock, time until craniotomy for severe TBI, prehospital airway management in unconscious patients (GCS < 9), and complete basic diagnostics available. Two indicators achieved a consensus in 11 criteria and thus represent the maximum consensus achieved within the group of experts. Four indicators only achieved a consensus in three quality criteria. 17 indicators had a mean value for the 3 relevance criteria of ≥ 3.5 and were, therefore, assessed by the group of experts as being highly relevant. Conclusion Not all the key figures published for the management of severely injured patients are suitable for use as quality indicators. It remains to be seen whether the quality indicators identified by experts using the QUALIFY process will meet the requirements in practice. Prior to the implementation of the assessed quality indicators in standardized quality assurance programs, a scientific evaluation based on national data will be required.
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
Background: Sensitive decision making tools should assist prehospital personnel in the triage of injured patients, identifying those who require immediate lifesaving interventions and safely reducing unnecessary under-and overtriage. In 2014 a new trauma team activation (TTA) tool was implemented in Central Norway. The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of the new TTA tool to identify severe injury. Methods: This was a multi-center observational cohort study with retrospective data analysis. All patients received by trauma teams at seven hospitals in Central Norway between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 were included. Severe injury was defined as Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Overtriage was defined as the rate of patients with TTA and ISS < 15, whilst patients with TTA and ISS > 15 were defined as correctly triaged. Results: A total of 1141 patients were identified, of which 998 were eligible for triage criteria analysis. Median age was 35 years (IQR 20-58) and the male proportion was 67%. Mechanism of injury was predominantly blunt trauma (96%) with transport related accidents (62%) followed by falls (22%) the most common. Overall, median injury severity score (ISS) was low and severely injured patients (ISS > 15) comprised 13% of the cohort. Utility of specific TTA criteria were: physiology 20%, anatomical injury 21%, mechanism of injury (MOI) 53% and special causes 6%. Overtriage among all patients was 87%, and for those with physiologic criteria 66%, anatomical injury 82%, mechanism of injury 97% and special causes criteria 92%, respectively. Conclusions: Severe injury was infrequent and there was a substantial rate of overtriage. The ability of the TTA tool was relatively insensitive in identifying severe injury, but showed increased performance when utilizing physiologic and anatomical injury criteria. Many of the TTA mechanism of injury criteria might be considered for removal from the triage tool due to substantial rates of overtriage. This has relevance for the proposed development of national Norwegian TTA criteria.
Complication rates as a trauma care performance indicator: a systematic review
Critical Care, 2012
Introduction: Information on complication rates is essential to trauma quality improvement efforts. However, it is unclear which complications are the most clinically relevant. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether there is consensus on the complications that should be used to evaluate the performance of acute care trauma hospitals. Methods: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, BIOSIS, TRIP and ProQuest databases and included studies using at least one nonfatal outcome to evaluate the performance of acute care trauma hospitals. Data were extracted in duplicate using a piloted electronic data abstraction form. Consensus was considered to be reached if a specific complication was used in ≥ 70% of studies (strong recommendation) or in ≥ 50% of studies (weak recommendation). Results: Of 14,521 citations identified, 22 were eligible for inclusion. We observed important heterogeneity in the complications used to evaluate trauma care. Seventy-nine specific complications were identified but none were used in ≥ 70% of studies and only three (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and pneumonia) were used in ≥ 50% of studies. Only one study provided evidence for the clinical relevance of complications used and only five studies (23%) were considered of high methodological quality. Conclusion: Based on the results of this review, we can make a weak recommendation on three complications that should be used to evaluate acute care trauma hospitals; pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and pneumonia. However, considering the observed disparity in definitions, the lack of clinical justification for the complications used, and the low methodological quality of studies, further research is needed to develop a valid and reliable performance indicator based on complications that can be used to improve the quality and efficiency of trauma care.