Field Triage Criteria Research Articles

Accuracy of the Quebec Pre-Hospital Triage Scale (EQTPT) in Predicting the Need for Trauma Team Activation: A Retrospective Administrative Data Study

Background: Trauma team activation at a Level 1 trauma centre In Quebec, Canada, is primarily at the emergency department’s staff discretion. Trauma teams may be activated prehospital, based on information provided by field paramedics or in the emergency department based on the patient’s condition on arrival. In this study, we examined over and undertriage rates based on present trauma team activation criteria. We also examined if trauma team activation, for those patients solely meeting pre-hospital major trauma criteria, would result in significant overactivation of the trauma team. Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective medical record review. Primary ambulance transport reports from May 15, 2018 to December 31, 2020, were screened to identify patients aged ≥16 years who met pre-hospital trauma triage criteria to bypass community hospitals to arrive directly at the Level 1 trauma centre. We examined pre-hospital triage criteria, trauma team involvement, Injury Severity Scores (ISS) and final disposition. Patients were evaluated for over and undertriage and rates were compared to the rates assuming all patients were to have a trauma team activation. We considered patients overtriaged if they had a full trauma team activation but had an ISS <12 and were discharged from the emergency department. Undertriage was defined as any patient with an ISS ³12 and did not have a trauma team activation. Results: Of the 371 patients who met study inclusion criteria, 123 (33.3%) did not meet trauma team activation criteria, while 214 (57.7%) had a trauma team activation. Of these, 49 patients (13.2%) were undertriaged and 31 patients (8.4%) were overtriaged and 25.8% of the major trauma patients (ISS ³ 12) were undertriaged. A trauma team activation for all meeting field triage criteria increased overtriage to 25.3% and brought undertriage rates to 0%, with statistically significant differences based on the Wilcoxon signed ranks test (p<0.05). Conclusions: In this study, undertriage rates were well above 5%. Trauma team activation, based on local field trauma triage criteria adapted from the CDC-ACSCOT field triage criteria, eliminates undertriage and keeps overtriage rates below 35%. This research suggests that field triage criteria accurately predict major trauma and the need for the involvement of the trauma team and that the condition of the trauma patient in the pre-hospital setting is accurately predicting the need for advanced trauma care

English

Background: For patients sustaining major trauma, decreasing time to definitive care remains a primary goal. Specialized trauma team involvement is essential for coordinating the emergency department care of complex major trauma patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the timing of trauma team involvement impacts length of stay and time to definitive care in the emergency department. Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective medical record review, including patients meeting Quebec pre-hospital triage criteria for major trauma from May 15, 2018 to December 31, 2020. We assessed time from patient arrival until departure from the resuscitation room, time to CT scan, time to disposition, and overall length of emergency department stay. Patients were grouped according to the timing of trauma team activation (TTA) as (1) pre-hospital notification, (2) on arrival in the emergency department, (3) receiving a trauma consult only, or (4) no trauma team involvement. Mean times and standard deviations were calculated, and group differences were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the independent sample Mann-Whitney U test. Results: We identified 371 patients meeting our inclusion criteria; there were no differences between groups in mean time spent in the resuscitation room based on the timing of trauma team involvement (45-51 minutes, p=0.422). A trauma team activation with pre-hospital notification was associated with a statistically significant shorter time to CT scan (62-81 minutes, p=0.010), time to disposition (6:37-13:41, p<0.001), and total emergency department length of stay (9:22-23:16 hours: minutes, p<0.001). Conclusion: Appropriate trauma team activation improves performance indicators used to evaluate the quality of care in the emergency department. This research suggests that pre-hospital trauma team activation should be considered the standard of care for all patients meeting pre-hospital field triage criteria for major trauma. Keywords: trauma, triage, pre-hospital, trauma team activation, trauma quality indicators

Evaluation of Prehospital Undertriage in Relation to Trauma Team Activation-Results from a Prospective Study in 12 Level one German Trauma Centers.

Background/Objective: This prospective, multicenter observational cohort study was carried out in 12 trauma centers in Germany and Switzerland. Its purpose was to evaluate the rate of undertriage, as well as potential consequences, and relate these with different Trauma Team Activation Protocols (TTA-Protocols), as this has not been done before in Germany. Methods: Each trauma center collected the data during a three-month period between December 2019 and February 2021. All 12 participating hospitals are certified as supra-regional trauma centers. Here, we report a subgroup analysis of undertriaged patients. Those included in the study were all consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with acute trauma admitted to the emergency department of one of the participating hospitals by the prehospital emergency medical service (EMS) within 6 h after trauma. The data contained information on age, sex, trauma mechanism, pre- and in-hospital physiology, emergency interventions, emergency surgical interventions, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and death within 48 h. Trauma team activation (TTA) was initiated by the emergency medical services. This should follow the national guidelines for severe trauma using established field triage criteria. We used various denominators, such as ISS, and criteria for the appropriateness of TTA to evaluate the undertriage in four groups. Results: This study included a total of 3754 patients. The average injury severity score was 5.1 points, and 7.0% of cases (n = 261) presented with an injury severity score (ISS) of 16+. TTA was initiated for a total of 974 (26%) patients. In group 1, we evaluated how successful the actual practice in the EMS was in identifying patients with ISS 16+. The undertriage rate was 15.3%, but mortality was lower in the undertriage cohort compared to those with a TTA (5% vs. 10%). In group 2, we evaluated the actual practice of EMS in terms of identifying patients meeting the appropriateness of TTA criteria; this showed a higher undertriage rate of 35.9%, but as seen in group 1, the mortality was lower (5.9% vs. 3.3%). In group 3, we showed that, if the EMS were to strictly follow guideline criteria, the rate of undertriage would be even higher (26.2%) regarding ISS 16+. Using the appropriateness of TTA criteria to define the gold standard for TTA (group 4), 764 cases (20.4%) fulfilled at least one condition for retrospective definition of TTA requirement. Conclusions: Regarding ISS 16+, the rate of undertriage in actual practice was 15.3%, but those patients did not have a higher mortality.

Characterizing re-triage guidelines: A scoping review of states’ rules and regulations

BackgroundState guidelines for re-triage, or emergency inter-facility transfer, have never been characterized across the United States. MethodsAll 50 states’ Department of Health and/or Trauma System websites were reviewed for publicly available re-triage guidelines within their rules and regulations. Communication was made via phone or email to state agencies or trauma advisory committees to obtain or confirm the absence of guidelines where public data was unavailable. Guideline criteria were abstracted and grouped into domains of Center for Disease Control Field Triage Criteria: pattern/anatomy of injury, vital signs, special populations, and mechanisms of injury. Re-triage criteria were summarized across states using median and interquartile ranges for continuous data and frequencies for categorical data. Demographic data of states with and without re-triage guidelines were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. ResultsRe-triage guidelines were identified for 22 of 50 states (44%). Common anatomy of injury criteria included head trauma (91% of states with guidelines), spinal cord injury (82%), chest injury (77%), and pelvic injury (73%). Common vital signs criteria included Glasgow Coma Score (91% of states) ranging from 8 to 14, systolic blood pressure (36%) ranging from 90 to 100 mm Hg, and respiratory rate (23%) with all using 10 respirations/minute. Common special populations criteria included mechanical ventilation (73% of states), age (68%) ranging from <2 or >60 years, cardiac disease (59%), and pregnancy (55%). No significant demographic differences were found between states with versus without re-triage guidelines. ConclusionA minority of US states have re-triage guidelines. Characterizing existing criteria can inform future guideline development.

Trauma center designation level and survival of patients with chest wall instability

IntroductionChest wall instability is a potentially life-threatening condition that should be evaluated at a trauma center. While patients with chest wall instability are sent to different trauma center levels, the impact of this on outcomes has not been evaluated yet. This study examines survival to hospital discharge of patients with chest wall instability treated at different trauma center levels. MethodsThis is an observational retrospective cohort study analyzed data from National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) 2017 dataset. The study sample consisted of adult patients who presented with chest wall instability or deformity and for whom the ED disposition was recorded. Descriptive analysis was carried out. Hospital information, patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, and dispositions were compared based on the main independent variable “trauma designation level. This was followed by LASSO regression to determine the impact of the trauma designation level on patients' survival after controlling for most of the extracted factors from NTDB to conduct this study. ResultsThe study sample consisted of 1172 patients sustaining chest wall instability or deformity. Most patients were males (78.2%) and had a median age of 52 years. Most were taken to level I (51.5%) or level II (43.2%) trauma centers. The overall survival to hospital discharge was 78.2%. After adjusting for confounders, no difference in patients' survival was noticed between those taken to level II [OR = 1.000; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.976–1.025] or III [OR = 1.000; 95% CI: 0.993–1.007] trauma centers and those taken to level I centers. ConclusionSurvival rates for patients having chest wall instability were similar when transported to level II or level III versus level I centers. This finding can help guide pre-hospital field triage criteria for this specific type of injury and highlights the need for more outcome research in organized trauma systems.

Disparity in Transport of Critically Injured Patients to Trauma Centers: Analysis of the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS).

Patient morbidity and mortality decrease when injured patients meeting CDC Field Triage Criteria (FTC) are transported by emergency medical services (EMS) directly to designated trauma centers (TCs). This study aimed to identify potential disparities in the transport of critically injured patients to TCs by EMS. We identified all patients in the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS) database in the National Association of EMS State Officials East region from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, with a final prehospital acuity of critical or emergent by EMS. The cohort was stratified into patients transported to TCs or non-TCs. Analyses consisted of descriptive epidemiology, comparisons, and multivariable logistic regression analysis to measure the association of demographic features, vital signs, and CDC FTC designation by EMS with transport to a TC. A total of 670,264 patients were identified as sustaining an injury, of which 94,250 (14%) were critically injured. Of those 94,250 critically injured, 56.0% (52,747) were transported to TCs. Among all critically injured women (n = 41,522), 50.4% were transported to TCs compared with 60.4% of critically injured men (n = 52,728, p < 0.001). In a multivariable logistic regression model, critically injured women were 19% less likely to be taken to a TC compared with critically injured men (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.93, p = 0.003). Critically injured female patients are less likely to be transported to TCs when compared with their male counterparts. Performance improvement processes that assess EMS compliance with field triage guidelines should explicitly evaluate for sex-based disparities. Further studies are warranted.

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.

Field Trauma Triage among Older Adults: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

National guidelines for prehospital trauma triage aim to identify seriously injured patients who may benefit from transport to trauma centers. These guidelines have poor sensitivity for serious injury among older adults. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a high-sensitivity triage strategy for older adults. We developed a Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity field triage criteria among older adults compared with current practice. The model used a retrospective cohort of 3621 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who were transported by emergency medical services after an acute injury in 7 counties in the northwestern US during January to December 2011. These data informed model estimates of emergency medical services triage assessment, hospital transport patterns, and outcomes from index hospitalization up to 1 year after discharge. Outcomes beyond 1 year were modeled using published literature. Differences in cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for both strategies using a lifetime analytical horizon. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per QALY gained) to assess cost-effectiveness, which we defined using a threshold of less than $100,000 per QALY. High-sensitivity trauma field triage for older adults would produce a small incremental benefit in average trauma system effectiveness (0.0003 QALY) per patient at a cost of $1,236,295 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the cost of initial hospitalization and emergency medical services adherence to triage status (ie transporting triage-positive patients to a trauma center) had the largest influence on overall cost-effectiveness. High-sensitivity trauma field triage is not cost-effective among older adults.

CDC field triage criteria accurately predicts outcomes in high impact trauma.

:Background:The precision of emergency medical services (EMS) triage criteria dictates whether an injured patient receives appropriate care. The trauma triage protocol is a decision scheme that groups patients into triage categories of major, moderate and minor. We hypothesized that there is a difference between trauma triage category and injury severity score (ISS).Methods:This retrospective, observational study was conducted to investigate a difference between trauma triage category and ISS. Bivariate analysis was used to test for differences between the subgroup means. The differences between the group means on each measure were analyzed for direction and statistical significance using ANOVA for continuous variables and chi square tests for categorical variables. Logistic and linear regressions were performed to evaluate factors predicting mortality, ICU length of stay.Results:With respect to trauma triage category, our findings indicate that minor and moderate triage categories are similar with respect to ISS, GCS, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and mortality. However, after excluding for low impact injuries (falls), differences between the minor and moderate categories were evident when comparing to ISS, GCS, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS. Additionally, after excluding for low impact injures, ISS, ICU LOS, and hospital stay were found to correlate well with trauma triage category. Conclusions:In this retrospective, observational study significant differences were not seen when comparing ISS with the trauma triage categories of moderate and minor during our initial analysis. However, a difference was found after excluding for low impact injuries. These findings suggest that CDC criteria accurately predicts outcomes in high impact trauma.

Prehospital Response Time of the Emergency Medical Service during Mass Casualty Incidents and the Effect of Triage: A Retrospective Study.

Prehospital time affects survival in trauma patients. Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are overwhelming events where medical care exceeds available resources. This study aimed at evaluating the prehospital time during MCIs and investigating the effect of triage. A retrospective analysis was performed using Florida's Event Medical Services Tracking and Reporting System database. All patients involved in MCIs during 2018 were accessed, and prehospital time intervals were evaluated and compared to that of non-MCIs. The effect of MCI triage and field triage (Field Triage Criteria) on prehospital time was evaluated. In 2018, it was estimated that 2236 unique MCIs occurred in Florida, with a crude incidence of 10.1-10.9/100000 people. 2180 EMS units arrived at the hospital for patient disposition with a median alarm-to-hospital time of 43.74 minutes, significantly longer than non-MCIs (39.15 min; P < 0.001). MCI triage and field triage were both associated with shorter alarm-to-hospital time (39.37 min and 37.55 min, respectively). MCIs resulted in longer prehospital time intervals than non-MCIs. This finding suggests that additional efforts are needed to reduce the prehospital time for MCI patients. MCI triage and field triage were both associated with shorter alarm-to-hospital times. Widespread use may improve prehospital MCI care.

The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of its Parts: GCS Versus GCS-Motor for Triage in Geriatric Trauma

BackgroundTrauma field triage matches injured patients to the appropriate level of care. Prior work suggests the Glasgow Coma Scale motor (GCSm) is as accurate as the total GCS (GCSt) and easier to use. However, older patients present with higher GCS for a given injury, and as such, it is unclear if this substitution is advisable. Our objective was to compare the GCS deficit patterns between geriatric and adult patients presenting with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as the diagnostic performance of the GCSm versus GCSt within the field triage criteria in these populations. Materials and MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients ≥16 y in the National Trauma Data Bank 2007–2015. GCS deficit patterns were compared between adults (16-65) and geriatric patients (>65). Measures of diagnostic performance of GCSt≤13 versus GCSm≤5 criteria to predict trauma center need (TCN) were compared. ResultsIn total, 4,480,185 patients were analyzed (28% geriatric). Geriatric patients more frequently presented with non–motor–only deficits than adults (16.4% versus 12.4%, P < 0.001), and these patients demonstrated higher severe TBI (40.3% versus 36.7%, P < 0.001) and craniotomy (5.8% versus 5.1%, P < 0.001) rates. GCSt was more sensitive and accurate in predicting TCN for geriatric patients and had lower rates of undertriage as compared to GCSm. ConclusionsGeriatric patients more frequently present with non–motor–only deficits after injury, and this is associated with severe head injury. Substitution of GCSm for GCSt would exacerbate undertriage in geriatric patients and, thus, the total GCS should be maintained for field triage in geriatric patients.

Association Between Trauma Center Level and Outcomes of Adult Patients with Motorcycle Crash-Related Injuries in the United States.

Motorcycle crash-related injury mechanism is a criterion in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention field triage guidelines of injured patients, with a recommendation to transport affected patients to a trauma center need not be the highest level. This study examines the evidence behind this recommendation because severe injuries can result from motorcycle crashes and patients can benefit from treatment at higher-level trauma centers. This retrospective cohort study used the National Trauma Data Bank 2015 dataset. We conducted descriptive analyses (univariate and bivariate) followed by adjusted multivariate analysis to examine the association between trauma center designation levels and survival to hospital discharge. A total of 28,821 patients with motorcycle injuries were included. Most patients were men (n=25,361; 88%) and aged between 16 and 64years (n=26,989; 93.6%). Survival rates were higher in level II (n=10,658; 95.3%) and III (n=2,129; 95.5%) trauma centers compared to level I centers (n=14,498; 94.6%). After adjusting for confounders, decreased survival to hospital discharge was noted for patients treated at level III trauma centers compared to those at level I centers (odds ratio 0.543; 95% confidence interval 0.390-0.729). No difference in survival was noted between level I and II centers. Patients with motorcycle crash-related injuries treated at higher-level trauma center (I or II) had increased survival. This warrants a re-evaluation and adjustment of the field triage criterion for such patients. Examining the evidence behind field triage guidelines in trauma systems is needed for improved patient outcomes.

The Suitability of the CdC field Triage for Korean Trauma Care

Purpose: Accurate and appropriate prehospital field triage is essential for a trauma system. The Korean trauma system (established in 2014) uses the trauma field triage algorithm of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This study evaluated the suitability of the CDC field triage criteria for major trauma cases (injury severity score >15) in Korea. Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated trauma patients who presented at the authors’ regional trauma center from January 1 to May 7, 2017. The undertriage and overtriage rates of each CDC field triage step were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated for each step. Results: Among the 1,009 enrolled patients, 168 (16.7%) had major trauma. The undertriage/overtriage rates of each step (steps I, II, III, and IV) of CDC field triage were 9.2%/47.4%, 6.3%/50.8%, 4.5%/59.4%, and 5.3%/78.9%, respectively. The AUC values of each CDC triage step were 0.722, 0.783, 0.791, and 0.615, respectively. The AUC values of the separate components of each step (physiologic criteria, anatomic criteria, mechanism- of-injury criteria, and special considerations) were 0.722, 0.648, 0.647, and 0.456, respectively. Conclusions: The CDC field triage system is acceptable, but not ideal, for Korean trauma care. If we follow the protocol, it would be preferable to omit step IV. The Korean Triage and Acuity Scale may be a good indicator for in-hospital triage. However, a new triage protocol that is simple to estimate on-scene while having good performance should be developed.

Survey on worldwide trauma team activation requirement

PurposeTrauma team activation (TTA) is thought to be essential for advanced and specialized care of very severely injured patients. However, non-specific TTA criteria may result in overtriage that consumes valuable resources or endanger patients in need of TTA secondary to undertriage. Consequently, criterion standard definitions to calculate the accuracy of the various TTA protocols are required for research and quality assurance purposes. Recently, several groups suggested a list of conditions when a trauma team is considered to be essential in the initial care in the emergency room. The objective of the survey was to post hoc identify trauma-related conditions that are thought to require a specialized trauma team that may be widely accepted, independent from the country’s income level.MethodsA set of questions was developed, centered around the level of agreement with the proposed post hoc criteria to define adequate trauma team activation. The participants gave feedback before they answered the survey to improve the quality of the questions. The finalized survey was conducted using an online tool and a word form. The income per capita of a country was rated according to the World Bank Country and Lending groups.ResultsThe return rate was 76% with a total of 37 countries participating. The agreement with the proposed criteria to define post hoc correct requirements for trauma team activation was more than 75% for 12 of the 20 criteria. The rate of disagreement was low and varied between zero and 13%. The level of agreement was independent from the country’s level of income.ConclusionsThe agreement on criteria to post hoc define correct requirements for trauma team activation appears high and it may be concluded that the proposed criteria could be useful for most countries, independent from their level of income. Nevertheless, more discussions on an international level appear to be warranted to achieve a full consensus to define a universal set of criteria that will allow for quality assessment of over- and undertriage of trauma team activation as well as for the validation of field triage criteria for the most severely injured patients worldwide.

Impact of trauma designation levels on survival of drowning victims: An observational study from trauma centers in the United States.

Drowning causes significant morbidity and mortality. Healthcare regionalization aims at improving patient outcomes. This study examines the impact of trauma center level designation on survival of drowning victims.Retrospective cohort study utilizing the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) 2015. Descriptive, bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted.The 212 patients were included. Mean age was 33.58 (±20.02) years with 69.3% (n = 147) males. Patients were mostly taken to Level I (n = 107, 50.5%) and II (n = 81, 32.8%) centers, requiring admission (43.5% (n = 96), 23.1% (n = 49) and 8.5% (n = 18) to Intensive Care, floor, and Operating Room, respectively). Overall hospital discharge survival was 83.5% (n = 177). After adjusting for confounders, there was no significant difference in survival of patients taken to Level I compared to Level II and III centers.This study did not identify a survival benefit for patients with drowning related injuries when taken to Level I compared to Level II or III Trauma centers. Further outcome studies are needed in organized trauma systems to improve field triage criteria for specific injury mechanisms.

Correlation between field triage criteria and the injury severity score of trauma patients in a French inclusive regional trauma system

BackgroundIn France, the pre-hospital field triage of trauma patients is currently based on the Vittel criteria algorithm. This algorithm was originally created in 2002 before the stratification of trauma centers and, at the national level, has not been revised since. This could be responsible for the overtriage of trauma patients in Level I Trauma Centers. The principal aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between each Vittel field triage criterion and trauma patients’ Injury Severity Score.MethodsOur Level I Trauma Center receives an average of 300 trauma patients per year. Demographic and physiological data, along with the entire trauma patient management process and Vittel field triage criteria, are recorded in a local trauma registry. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) are calculated after a complete assessment of the trauma victim during their in-hospital management. Results were concerned with the presence of an ISS of greater than 15, which defined a major trauma patient; mortality within 30 days; and admission to the intensive care unit. This study is a registry analysis from January 2013 to September 2017.ResultsOf the 1373 patients in the registry, 1151 were included in the analysis with a mean age of 43 years (± 19) and a median ISS of 13 (IQR = 5–22), where 887 (77%) were male. Nine of the 24 Vittel criteria were associated with an ISS > 15. In a multivariate analysis, no criterion related to kinetic elements was significantly correlated with an ISS > 15, mortality within 30 days, or admission to intensive care. Three algorithm categories were predictive of a major trauma patient (ISS > 15): physiological variables, pre-hospital resuscitation, and physical injuries, while kinetic elements were not.ConclusionsCriteria related to physiological variables, pre-hospital resuscitation, and physical injuries are the most relevant to predicting the severity of a trauma patient’s condition. A revision of the VCA could potentially have beneficial effects on the over and undertriage phenomena, which constitute ongoing medical and financial concerns.

Comorbidities, anticoagulants, and geriatric-specific physiology for the field triage of injured older adults.

Comorbid conditions and anticoagulants have been considered as field triage criteria to raise the sensitivity for identifying seriously injured older adults, but research is sparse. We evaluated the utility of comorbidities, anticoagulant use, and geriatric-specific physiologic measures to improve the sensitivity of the field triage guidelines for high-risk older adults in the out-of-hospital setting. This was a cohort study of injured adults 65 years or older transported by 44 emergency medical services agencies to 51 trauma and nontrauma hospitals in seven Oregon and Washington counties from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011. Out-of-hospital predictors included current field triage criteria, 13 comorbidities, preinjury anticoagulant use, and previously developed geriatric specific physiologic measures. The primary outcome (high-risk patients) was Injury Severity Score of 16 or greater or need for major nonorthopedic surgical intervention. We used binary recursive partitioning to develop a clinical decision rule with a target sensitivity of 95% or greater. There were 5,021 older adults, of which 320 (6.4%) had Injury Severity Score of 16 or greater or required major nonorthopedic surgery. Of the 2,639 patients with preinjury medication history available, 400 (15.2%) were taking an anticoagulant. Current field triage practices were 36.6% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.2%-42.0%) and 90.1% specific (95% CI, 89.2%-91.0%) for high-risk patients. Recursive partitioning identified (in order): any current field triage criteria, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or less, geriatric-specific vital signs, and comorbidity count of 2 or more. Anticoagulant use was not identified as a predictor variable. The new criteria were 90.3% sensitive (95% CI, 86.8%-93.7%) and 17.0% specific (95% CI, 15.8%-18.1%). The current field triage guidelines have poor sensitivity for high-risk older adults. Adding comorbidity information and geriatric-specific physiologic measures improved sensitivity, with a decrement in specificity. Prognostic/Epidemiologic, level II.

How Well Do EMS Providers Predict Intracranial Hemorrhage in Head-Injured Older Adults?

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of emergency medical services (EMS) provider judgment for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH) in older patients following head trauma in the field. We also compared EMS provider judgment with other sets of field triage criteria. Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted with five EMS agencies and 11 hospitals in Northern California. Patients 55 years and older who experienced blunt head trauma were transported by EMS between August 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016, and received an initial cranial computed tomography (CT) imaging, were eligible. EMS providers were asked, “What is your suspicion for the patient having intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain)?” Responses were recorded as ordinal categories (<1%, 1–5%, >5–10%, >10–50%, or >50%) and the incidences of tICH were recorded for each category. The accuracy of EMS provider judgment was compared to other sets of triage criteria, including current field triage criteria, current field triage criteria plus multivariate logistical regression risk factors, and actual transport. Results: Among the 673 patients enrolled, 319 (47.0%) were male and the median age was 75 years (interquartile range 64–85). Seventy-six (11.3%) patients had tICH on initial cranial CT imaging. The increase in EMS provider judgment correlated with an increase in the incidence of tICH. EMS provider judgment had a sensitivity of 77.6% (95% CI 67.1–85.5%) and a specificity of 41.5% (37.7–45.5%) when using a threshold of 1% or higher suspicion for tICH. Current field triage criteria (Steps 1–3) was poorly sensitive (26.3%, 95% CI 17.7–37.2%) in identifying tICH and current field trial criteria plus multivariate logistical regression risk factors was sensitive (97.4%, 95% CI 90.9–99.3%) but poorly specific (12.9%, 95% CI 10.4–15.8%). Actual transport was comparable to EMS provider judgment (sensitivity 71.1%, 95% CI 60.0–80.0%; specificity 35.3%, 95% CI 31.6–38.3%). Conclusions: As EMS provider judgment for tICH increased, the incidence for tICH also increased. EMS provider judgment, using a threshold of 1% or higher suspicion for tICH, was more accurate than current field triage criteria, with and without additional risk factors included.

The Incidence of Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage in Head-Injured Older Adults Transported by EMS with and without Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Use.

Field triage guidelines recommend transport of head-injured patients on anticoagulants or antiplatelets to a higher-level trauma center based on studies suggesting a high incidence of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH). We compared the incidence of tICH in older adults transported by emergency medical services (EMS) with and without anticoagulation or antiplatelet use and evaluated the accuracies of different sets of field triage criteria to identify tICH. This was a prospective, observational study at five EMS agencies and 11 hospitals. Older adults (≥55 years) with head trauma and transported by EMS from August 2015 to September 2016 were eligible. EMS providers completed standardized data forms and patients were followed through emergency department (ED) or hospital discharge. We enrolled 1304 patients; 1147 (88%) received a cranial computed tomography (CT) scan and were eligible for analysis. Four hundred thirty-four (33%) patients had anticoagulant or antiplatelet use and 112 (10%) had tICH. The incidence of tICH in patients with (11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8%-14%) and without (9%, 95% CI 7%-11%) anticoagulant or antiplatelet use was similar. Anticoagulant or antiplatelet use was not predictive of tICH on adjusted analysis. Steps 1-3 criteria alone were not sensitive in identifying tICH (27%), whereas the addition of anticoagulant or antiplatelet criterion improved sensitivity (63%). Other derived sets of triage criteria were highly sensitive (>98%) but poorly specific (<11%). The incidence of tICH was similar between patients with and without anticoagulant or antiplatelet use. Use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications was not a risk factor for tICH. We were unable to identify a set of triage criteria that was accurate for trauma center need.

Role of Guideline Adherence in Improving Field Triage

Objective: To compare the sensitivity of current field triage practices for identifying high-risk trauma patients to strict guideline adherence, including changes in triage specificity, ambulance transport patterns, and trauma center volumes. Methods: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of an out-of-hospital prospective cohort of injured children and adults transported by 44 EMS agencies to 28 trauma and non-trauma hospitals in 7 Northwest U.S. counties from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. Outcomes included Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16 (primary) and early critical resource use. Strict adherence of the triage guidelines was based on evidence in the EMS chart for patients meeting any current field triage criteria, calculated with and without strict interpretation of the age criterion (<15 or >55 years). Due to the probability sampling nature of the cohort, strata and weights were included in all analyses. Results: 17,633 injured patients were transported by EMS (weighted to represent 53,487 transported patients), including 3.1% with ISS ≥16 and 1.7% requiring early critical resources. Field triage sensitivity for identifying patients with ISS ≥16 increased from the current 66.2% (95% CI 60.2–71.7%) to 87.3% (95% CI 81.9–91.2%) for strict adherence without age and to 91.0% (95% CI 86.4–94.2%) for strict adherence with age. Specificity decreased with increasing adherence, from 87.8% (current) to 47.6% (strict adherence without age) and 35.8% (strict adherence with age). Areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.78, 0.73, and 0.72, respectively. Results were similar for patients requiring early critical resources. We estimate the number of triage-positive patients transported each year by EMS to an individual major trauma center (on average) to increase from 1,331 (current) to 5,139 (strict adherence without age) and to 6,256 (strict adherence with age). Conclusions: The low sensitivity of current triage practices would be expected to improve with strict adherence to current triage guidelines, with a commensurate decrease in triage specificity and an increase in the number of triage-positive patients transported to major trauma centers.