Field Triage Guidelines Research Articles

Enhancing Performance of the National Field Triage Guidelines Using Machine Learning: Development of a Prehospital Triage Model to Predict Severe Trauma.

Prehospital 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. This study aimed to build a prehospital triage model to predict severe trauma and enhance the performance of the national field triage guidelines. This 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. At 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. The 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.

Patient Outcomes Based on the 2011 CDC Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients.

Patient Outcomes Based on the 2011 CDC Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients.

Patient Outcomes Based on the 2011 CDC Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients drive the destination decision for millions of emergency medical services (EMS)-transported trauma patients annually, yet limited information exists regarding performance and relationship with patient outcomes as a whole. To evaluate the association of positive findings on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients with hospitalization and mortality. This retrospective study included all 911 responses from the 2019 ESO Data Collaborative research dataset with complete Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients and linked emergency department dispositions, excluding children and cardiac arrests prior to EMS arrival. Patients were categorized by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients step(s) met. Outcomes were hospitalization and emergency department or inhospital mortality. There were 86,462 records included: n = 65,967 (76.3%) met no criteria, n = 16,443 (19.0%) met one step (n = 1,571 [9.6%] vitals, n = 1,030 [6.3%] anatomy of injury, n = 993 [6.0%] mechanism of injury, and n = 12,849 [78.1%] special considerations), and n = 4,052 (4.7%) met multiple. Compared with meeting no criteria, hospitalization odds increased threefold for vitals (odds ratio [OR]: 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.77-3.40), fourfold for anatomy of injury (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 3.48-4.46), twofold for mechanism of injury (OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.74-2.29), or special considerations (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 2.36-2.56). Hospitalization odds increased ninefold when positive in multiple steps (OR: 8.97, 95% CI: 8.37-9.62). Overall, n = 84,473 (97.7%) had mortality data available, and n = 886 (1.0%) died. When compared with meeting no criteria, mortality odds increased 10-fold when positive in vitals (OR: 9.58, 95% CI: 7.30-12.56), twofold for anatomy of injury (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.28-4.29), or special considerations (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.71-2.60). There was no difference when only positive for mechanism of injury (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.03-1.54). Mortality odds increased 23-fold when positive in multiple steps (OR: 22.7, 95% CI: 19.7-26.8). Patients meeting multiple Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients steps were at greater risk of hospitalization and death. When meeting only one step, anatomy of injury was associated with greater risk of hospitalization; vital sign criteria were associated with greater risk of mortality.

Effect of Trauma Mechanism of Injury on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression Screening

INTRODUCTION: Few data exist guiding surgeons on the management of trauma-induced mental health issues. We hypothesize that the mechanism of injury (MoI) affects posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression in trauma patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult Level I trauma center patients from March 2018 to June 2021 completing a 3-month follow-up screening for PTSD with PCL-5 and depression with PHQ-9 scoring. Demographics and hospitalization details were culled from electronic medical records. MoI was categorized as blunt: low energy, blunt: high energy, and penetrating type by CDC Field Triage Guidelines. Baseline characteristics were compared. Scores were dichotomized before generating logistic and ordinal regression models. RESULTS: A total of 1,148 trauma patients underwent follow-up screening for PTSD and depression. MoI included 67.6% blunt: high energy, 23.2% blunt: low energy, and 9.2% penetrating trauma. Penetrating patients were more likely to screen PTSD positive (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.93) and blunt: low energy patients were less likely (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.84). MoI did not significantly influence depression screening. Patients with previous depression history were more likely to screen positive for PTSD (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.70 to 4.61) and experience higher depression scores (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.47; Figure).Figure.: ISS, injury severity score; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.CONCLUSION: Mechanism of injury influences psychiatric sequelae in trauma patients. Compared wth blunt mechanisms, penetrating trauma patients were more likely to screen positive for PTSD. Blunt: low energy provided a protective effect. Routine PTSD screening, especially after penetrating trauma, may identify patients requiring further investigation and intervention.

Mechanism of injury and special considerations as predictive of serious injury: A systematic review.

ObjectivesThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's field triage guidelines (FTG) are routinely used by emergency medical services personnel for triaging injured patients. The most recent (2011) FTG contains physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special consideration steps. Our objective was to systematically review the criteria in the mechanism and special consideration steps that might be predictive of serious injury or need for a trauma center.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the predictive utility of mechanism and special consideration criteria for predicting serious injury. A research librarian searched in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Eligible studies were identified using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they lacked an outcome for serious injury, such as measures of resource use, injury severity scores, mortality, or composite measures using a combination of outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in populations, measures, and outcomes, results were synthesized qualitatively focusing on positive likelihood ratios (LR+) whenever these could be calculated from presented data or adjusted odds ratios (aOR).ResultsWe reviewed 2418 abstracts and 315 full‐text publications and identified 42 relevant studies. The factors most predictive of serious injury across multiple studies were death in the same vehicle (LR+ 2.2–7.4), ejection (aOR 3.2–266.2), extrication (LR+ 1.1–6.6), lack of seat belt use (aOR 4.4–11.3), high speeds (aOR 2.0–2.9), concerning crash variables identified by vehicle telemetry systems (LR+ 4.7–22.2), falls from height (LR+ 2.4–5.9), and axial load or diving (aOR 2.5–17.6). Minor or inconsistent predictors of serious injury were vehicle intrusion (LR+ 0.8–7.2), cardiopulmonary or neurologic comorbidities (LR+ 0.8–3.1), older age (LR+ 0.6–6.8), or anticoagulant use (LR+ 1.1–1.8).ConclusionsSelect mechanism and special consideration criteria contribute positively to appropriate field triage of potentially injured patients.

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.

Under-Triage and Over-Triage Using the Field Triage Guidelines for Injured Patients: A Systematic Review

Objectives The Field Triage Guidelines (FTG) are used across North America to identify seriously injured patients for transport to appropriate level trauma centers, with a goal of under-triaging no more than 5% and over-triaging between 25% and 35%. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on under-triage and over-triage rates of the FTG. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the FTG performance. Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Two investigators dual-reviewed eligibility of abstracts and full-text. We included studies evaluating under- or over-triage of patients using the FTG in the prehospital setting. We excluded studies not reporting an outcome of under- or over-triage, studies evaluating other triage tools, or studies of triage not in the prehospital setting. Two investigators independently assessed the risk of bias for each included article. The primary accuracy measures to assess the FTG were under-triage, defined as seriously injured patients transported to non-trauma hospitals (1-sensitivity), and over-triage, defined as non-injured patients transported to trauma hospitals (1-specificity). Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesized qualitatively. Results We screened 2,418 abstracts, reviewed 315 full-text publications, and identified 17 studies that evaluated the accuracy of the FTG. Among eight studies evaluating the entire FTG (steps 1–4), under-triage rates ranged from 1.6% to 72.0% and were higher for older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (20.1–72.0%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (15.9–34.8%) compared to all ages (1.6–33.8%). Over-triage rates ranged from 9.9% to 87.4% and were higher for all ages (12.2–87.4%) compared to older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (9.9–48.2%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (28.0–33.6%). Under-triage was lower in studies strictly applying the FTG retrospectively (1.6–34.8%) compared to as-practiced (10.5–72.0%), while over-triage was higher retrospectively (64.2–87.4%) compared to as-practiced (9.9–48.2%). Conclusions Evidence suggests that under-triage, while improved if the FTG is strictly applied, remains above targets, with higher rates of under-triage in both children and older adults.

The national trauma triage protocol: how EMS perspective can inform the guideline revision

ObjectivesThe Field Triage Guidelines (FTG) support emergency medical service (EMS) decisions regarding the most appropriate transport destination for injured patients. While the components of the algorithm are largely evidenced-based, the...

66 Prediction of Hospitalization and Mortality Based on Emergency Medical Services-Recorded Criteria from the 2011 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients

Our study objective was to evaluate hospitalization and mortality of injured patients transported by emergency medical services (EMS) based upon the 2011 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients.

Out with the Old and in With the New: Deimplementation in Emergency Medicine.

Much of emergency medicine care and quality standards are rooted in evidence-based guidelines. The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and the journal Academic Emergency Medicine through publications, conferences, and various initiatives have encouraged the emergency medicine community to create and disseminate evidence-based guidelines. New and updated guidelines must also be implemented into practice. Increasing numbers of publications in this journal and elsewhere are shining light on how the theories and frameworks of implementation science can increase the uptake, reach, and sustainability of evidence-based guidelines in emergency medicine.

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.

Disparities in rural versus urban field triage: Risk and mitigating factors for undertriage.

There are well-known disparities for patients injured in rural setting versus urban setting. Many cite access to care; however, the mechanisms are not defined. One potential factor is differences in field triage. Our objective was to evaluate differences in prehospital undertriage (UT) in rural setting versus urban settings. Adult patients in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study (PTOS) registry 2000 to 2017 were included. Rural/urban setting was defined by county according to the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation. Rural/urban classification was performed for patients and centers. Undertriage was defined as patients meeting physiologic or anatomic triage criteria from the National Field Triage Guidelines who were not initially transported to a Level I or Level II trauma center. Logistic regression determined the association between UT and rural/urban setting, adjusting for transport distance and prehospital time. Models were expanded to evaluate the effect of individual triage criteria, trauma center setting, and transport mode on UT. There were 453,112 patients included (26% rural). Undertriage was higher in rural patients (8.6% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.01). Rural setting was associated with UT after adjusting for distance and prehospital time (odds ratio [OR], 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-6.78; p < 0.01). Different triage criteria were associated with UT in rural/urban settings. Rural setting was associated with UT for patients transferred to an urban center (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.75-6.25; p < 0.01), but not a rural center (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.08-5.53; p = 0.72). Rural setting was associated with UT for ground (OR, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.65-9.46; p < 0.01) but not air transport (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.54-2.55; p = 0.68). Undertriage is more common in rural settings. Specific triage criteria are associated with UT in rural settings. Lack of a rural trauma center requiring transfer to an urban center is a risk factor for UT of rural patients. Air medical transport mitigated the risk of UT in rural patients. Provider and system interventions may help reduce UT in rural settings. Care Management, Level IV.

Validation of Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients for major trauma in patients of brain and spinal injury.

Validation of Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients for major trauma in patients of brain and spinal injury.

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.

Analysis of injury mechanism of the elderly and non-elderly groups in minor motor vehicle accidents

Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate the injury patterns of noncatastrophic accidents by individual age groups.Methods: Data were collected from the Korean In-Depth Accident Study database based on actual accident investigation. The noncatastrophic criteria were classified according to U.S. experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations for field triage guidelines of high-risk automobile crash criteria by vehicle intrusions more than 12 in. on occupant sites (including the roof) and more than 18 in. on any site. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was used to determine injury patterns for each body region. Severely injured patients were classified as Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3 or higher.Results: In this study, the most significant injury regions were the head and neck, extremities, and thorax. In addition, the incidence of severe injury among elderly patients was nearly 1.6 times higher than that of non-elderly patients. According to age group, injured body regions among the elderly were the thorax, head and neck, and extremities, in that order. For the non-elderly groups, these were head and neck, extremities, and thorax. Severe injury rates were slightly different for the elderly group (head and neck, abdomen) and non-elderly group (thorax, head and neck).Conclusions: In both age groups, the rate of severe injury is proportional to an increase in crush extent zone. Front airbag deployment may have a relatively significant relationship to severe injuries.

Multicenter Analysis of Transport Destinations for Pediatric Prehospital Patients.

Although all emergency departments (EDs) should be ready to treat children, some may have illnesses or injuries that require higher-level pediatric resources that are not available at all hospitals. There are no national guidelines for emergency medical services (EMS) providers about when to directly transport children to hospitals with higher-level pediatric resources, with the exception of severe trauma. Variability exists in EMS protocols about when children warrant transport to hospitals with higher-level pediatric care. The objective was to determine how frequently pediatric patients are transported by EMS to hospitals with higher-level pediatric resources and to evaluate distribution patterns based on illness and injury severity. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all pediatric (age 0-18 years) transports in three large EMS systems between November 2014 and November 2016. Each community had a hospital with higher-level pediatric resources that was within a 30-minute transport time from any location. Patients were included if they were transported by ground ambulance and the request originated in the 9-1-1 system. We assessed the frequency of transports to a hospital with higher-level pediatric resources. Data were stratified by chief complaint of illness or injury and severity. Potential risk for severe injury was defined as meeting the physiologic step of the field triage guidelines and potential risk for severe illness was defined as having an abnormal vital sign after adjusting for patient age. A total of 41,345 pediatric patients were transported by a participating EMS agency to an ED and had complete destination data. A total of 55% of all EMS-transported pediatric patients were transported to a hospital with higher-level pediatric resources. There was variation by site (range= 45%-71%) in the percentage of children who went to a hospital with higher-level pediatric resources. Patients over 15 years of age went to general EDs (57%) more often than younger patients. When stratified by severity, 60% of those with potentially severe illness and 74% of those with potentially severe trauma were transported to a hospital with higher-level pediatric resources. EMS providers commonly transport children to hospitals with higher-level pediatric resources. However, more than one-quarter of children with potentially severe injuries and illnesses are transported to general EDs.

Can Planned Traffic Patterns Improve Survival Among the Injured During Mass Casualty Motorcycle Rallies?

BackgroundMass casualty events are infrequent and create an abrupt surge of patients requiring emergency medical services within a brief period. We hypothesize that implementation of a controlled “traffic loop” pattern during a planned high-volume motorcycle rally could improve overall mortality and impact patient outcomes. Materials and MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of all motorcycle-related injuries during the city's annual motorcycle rally over a 4-y period. Comparative analysis was completed between those injured during “nontraffic loop” hours versus the city's scheduled 23-mile, 3-d “traffic loop” pattern. The two groups were compared for age, gender, injuries, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, length of stay, ventilator-free days, and mortality. The primary outcome was mortality. ResultsA total of 139 patients were included (120 nonloop and 19 loop). Mean (standard deviation) age was 36.1 (11.2) y and 72.1% were male. Both groups were equivalent in age, gender, Injury Severity Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale. Traffic loop patients required longer intensive care unit length of stay, (median = 9.0, range: 1-49 d), ventilator days (median = 29.5), (range: 1-49 d) and experienced abdominal trauma (P = 0.002). Emergency medical services transport times during loop hours had shorter response times than the nonloop injury group (7.79 ± 5.2 min and 13.22 ± 14.01 min (P = 0.049). No deaths occurred during the city's scheduled traffic loop (0 versus 22, P = 0.0447). ConclusionsControlled traffic patterns during high-volume city gatherings can improve overall mortality and morbidity. Regional trauma system preparedness with field triage guidelines and coordinated trauma care is warranted to effectively care for the injured.

Correlation Between the Revised Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score: Implications for Prehospital Trauma Triage

Objective: 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. Methods: 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 were used to describe the cohort and correlation methods were employed. Each score’s accuracy for the prediction of mortality was calculated using the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Results: In total, 43,082 trauma patient records were reviewed; 32,798 patients had complete RTS data available and 32,371 patients had complete data available for MGAP analyses. The correlation between scene RTS and ISS was poor (−.29), as was the correlation between MGAP and ISS (−.28). For the prediction of mortality, admission MGAP demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity for mortality (AUROC 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95–0.96). Conclusions: While elements of the RTS remain the first criterion recommended to quantify the totality of physiological injury severity, the composite RTS score derived from this system correlates poorly with actual anatomical injury severity. The MGAP scoring system demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity for mortality but was not superior to the RTS for predicting anatomical injury severity. In the future development of national and international field triage guidelines for trauma patients, the findings from this study may be considered in order to improve the accuracy of prehospital triage. The findings in this analysis complement a growing body of evidence that suggests that MGAP may be a superior and more easily calculable prehospital scoring system for the prediction of mortality in trauma patients.

Rapid Ground Transport of Trauma Patients: A Moderate Distance From Trauma Center Improves Survival

BackgroundThere is debate within the emergency medical services (EMS) community over the value of calling a helicopter for trauma patients within a moderate distance/<45 min, of a trauma center. Helicopter EMS (HEMS) generally have a wider scope and more advanced training than the ground EMS (GEMS). GEMS, on the other hand, have the benefit of being able to immediately initiate rapid transport to the trauma center without the delay involved with HEMS flying to the scene, landing, and assuming patient care. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients brought to a level I trauma center who were admitted with blunt traumatic injuries between 2010 and 2015 in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. Two analyses were performed, one in which the patient's reported initial scene vitals met criteria for step one of the Centers for Disease Control's 2011 National Field Triage Guidelines (NFTG) and the other in which the patient's initial scene vitals met those same guidelines and/or had a pulse greater than 110 beats per minute. Patients were categorized on scene to emergency department (ED) transport mode, either HEMS or GEMS. Inclusion criteria were a HEMS response time to the scene that was between 15 and 45 min with a transport time from the scene to the ED that was between 10 and 35 min or a GEMS transport time from the scene to the ED that was between 15 and 45 min. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was established through logit regression. Mortality rates were then calculated within each transport mode–based population. ResultsFour hundred subjects were included in the analysis of patients meeting the first step of the NFTG, with 212 HEMS patients and 188 in the GEMS group. HEMS had a higher mortality rate at 0.184 and GEMS at 0.101, which was statistically significant (P = 0.019). When 606 subjects meeting the first step of the NFTG or with a pulse greater than 110 beats per minute were analyzed, the results were statistically significant (P < 0.001), with the HEMS category having a higher mortality rate at 0.154 and the GEMS category having a lower mortality at 0.056. ConclusionsOur data demonstrate that scene-to-ED time is paramount, and rapid ground transport should be used in blunt trauma patients when the scene is up to a moderate ground distance away from the trauma center and there would be a moderate-to-prolonged HEMS response time. In both analyses, hemodynamically unstable trauma patients had lower rates of mortality following ground transport. We recognize that there may be a subset of patients at these distances who could benefit from HEMS response, particularly if the flight crew can offer more advanced and specialized techniques; however, every effort should be made to minimize the scene-to-ED time, and HEMS response, scene, and transport time must be considered. This study only analyzed the patients within a moderate distance of the trauma center and at longer distances or in different environments; HEMS transport may indeed minimize the scene to ED time.

Paramedic and Surgeon Views on Trauma Surgical Readiness: Implications for Guideline Implementation

Centers for disease control (CDC) Guidelines for Field Triage are effective when proper implementation by EMS personnel is paired with surgeon willingness to care for trauma victims. We hypothesized that in a state with an immature trauma system, a discrepancy exists between medic and surgeon perception of surgical readiness, coinciding with inconsistent implementation of protocols. Surveys were conducted among medics and general surgeons. Destination protocols, trauma center locations, surgeon readiness, and interest in trauma were assessed. A standard clinical trauma scenario was also used. Surgeon willingness to operate is not affected by working outside of trauma centers or interest in trauma. Medics working far from trauma centers are less confident in local surgeon's willingness to operate and less likely to have destination protocols. Trauma center proximity affects medic perception of surgeon willingness to operate, but mere presence of general surgeons does not. In a trauma scenario, surgeon willingness to operate was related to medic perception but not action. In rural states, most surgeons do not work in trauma centers and most medics do not work near them. Although most responding surgeons indicate willingness to operate, medics are confident of such willingness only half the time. This disparity results in inconsistent use of the CDC guidelines. Although most medics report protocols for destination determination, nearly one-fourth of victims are taken to the geographically closest centers, sometimes with no surgeon at all. Efforts at medic training, enhancing surgeon readiness, and alignment of goals are necessary for the CDC Guidelines to be effective.