Field Triage Guidelines Research Articles

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.

Effect of the 2011 Revisions to the Field Triage Guidelines on Under- and Over-Triage Rates for Pediatric Trauma Patients

Background: In 2011, revised Field Triage Guidelines were released jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American College of Surgeons – Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT). It is unknown how the modifications will affect the number of injured children identified by EMS providers as needing transport to a trauma center. Objective: To determine the change in under- and over-triage rates when the 2011 Field Triage Guidelines are compared to the 2006 and 1999 versions. Methods: EMS providers in charge of care for injured children (<15 years) transported to pediatric trauma centers in 3 mid-sized cities were interviewed immediately after completing transport. Patients were included regardless of injury severity. The interview included patient demographics and each criterion from the Field Triage Guidelines' physiologic status, anatomic injury, and mechanism of injury steps. Included patients were followed through hospital discharge. The 1999, 2006, and 2011 Guidelines were each retrospectively applied to the collected data. Children were considered to have needed a trauma center if they had non-orthopedic surgery within 24 hours, ICU admission, or died. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: EMS interviews were conducted for 5,610 children and outcome data was available for 5,594 (99.7%). Average age was 7.6 years; 5% of children were identified as needing a trauma center using the study outcome. Applying the 1999, 2006, or 2011 Guidelines to the EMS interview data the over-triage rate was 32.6%, 27.9%, and 28.0%, respectively. The under-triage rate was 26.5%, 35.1%, and 34.8%, respectively. The 2011 Guidelines resulted in an 8.2% (95% CI 0.6–15.9%) absolute increase in under-triage and a 4.6% (95% CI 2.8–6.3%) decrease in over-triage compared to 1999 Guidelines. Conclusion: Use of the Field Triage Guidelines for children resulted in an unacceptably high rate of under-triage regardless of the version used. Use of the 2011 Guidelines increased under-triage compared to the 1999 version. Research is needed to determine how to better assist EMS providers in identifying children who need the resources of a trauma center.

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Trauma Triage and Destination Plan on the Field Triage of Injured Patients in North Carolina

Objective: Timely triage and appropriate destination decision making for injured patients are central challenges faced by emergency medical services (EMS) systems. In 2010, North Carolina (NC) adopted a statewide Trauma Triage and Destination Plan (TTDP) based on the CDC's Field Triage Guidelines to better address these challenges. We sought to characterize the implementation of these guidelines by quantifying their effect on multiple metrics of patient care. Methods: We employed a retrospective pre-post study design utilizing a statewide EMS medical record database. We assessed several metrics of patient care—including changes in destination choice, appropriateness of EMS destination, transit time to first hospital, transit time to definitive care, and others—in a six-month period in the year before and after the implementation of the guidelines. Results: We evaluated a total of 190,307 EMS encounters pre- (n = 93,927) and post-implementation (n = 96,380). Among all patients, there was not a significant difference in the percentage transported to a community hospital or Level I, II, or III trauma center as their first destination. Among those patients meeting TTDP guidelines for transport to a trauma center, the number transported to a Level I or II trauma center decreased 1.0% from 30.6% (n = 2,911) to 29.6% (n = 2,954) (95% CI: −0.2%, 2.2%). Those transported to a Level I trauma center decreased 0.4% from 21.2% to 20.8% in the post-period (95% CI: −0.7%, 1.5%). There were also no significant changes in EMS scene times (14.0 pre-, 14.1 post-) and transport times (12.9 pre-, 13.0 post-). While scene distance from a Level I trauma center showed a decreased likelihood of transport to that center, there was an overall post-implementation increase of 2.5% from 18.0% to 20.5% (95% CI: −3.6%, −1.3%) in transport to a Level I trauma center among patients meeting anatomic criteria across all distance ranges. Conclusions: We found that implementation of region-specific destination plans based on the Field Triage Guidelines had little effect on selected hospital destination, scene times, transport times, and other metrics of EMS decision making and effectiveness. We suspect this is due to delays in information dissemination and adoption by field providers.

Age-related Disparities in Trauma Center Access for Severe Head Injuries Following the Release of the Updated Field Triage Guidelines.

In 2006, the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released field triage guidelines with special consideration for older adults. Additional considerations for direct transport to a Level I or II trauma center (TC) were added in 2011, reflecting perceived undertriage to TCs for older adults. We examined whether age-based disparities in TC care for severe head injury decreased following introduction of the 2011 revisions. A pre-post design analyzing the 2009 and 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases with multivariable logistic regressions considered changes in 1) the trauma designation of the emergency department where treatment was initiated and 2) transfer to a TC following initial treatment at a non-TC. Compared with adults aged 18 to 44 years, after multivariable adjustment, in both years TC care was less likely for adults aged 45 to 64 years (odds ratio [OR]= 0.76 in 2009 and 0.74 in 2012), aged 65 to 84 years (OR= 0.61 and 0.59), and aged 85+ years (OR= 0.53 and 0.56). Between 2009 and 2012, the likelihood of TC care increased for all age groups, with the largest increase among those aged 85+ years (OR=1.18), which was statistically different (p=0.02) from the increase among adults aged 18 to 44 years (OR=1.12). The analysis of transfers yielded similar results. Although patterns of increased TC treatment for all groups with severe head trauma indicate improvements, age-based disparities persisted.

Out-of-Hospital Triage of Older Adults With Head Injury: A Retrospective Study of the Effect of Adding “Anticoagulation or Antiplatelet Medication Use” as a Criterion

Field triage guidelines recommend that emergency medical services (EMS) providers consider transport of head-injured older adults with anticoagulation use to trauma centers. However, the triage patterns and the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage or neurosurgery in these patients are unknown. Our objective is to describe the characteristics and outcomes of older adults with head trauma who are transported by EMS, particularly for patients who do not meet physiologic, anatomic, or mechanism-of-injury (steps 1 to 3) field triage criteria but are receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications. This was a retrospective study at 5 EMS agencies and 11 hospitals (4 trauma centers, 7 nontrauma centers). Patients aged 55 years or older with head trauma who were transported by EMS were included. The primary outcome was the presence of intracranial hemorrhage. The secondary outcome was a composite measure of inhospital death or neurosurgery. Of the 2,110 patients included, 131 (6%) had intracranial hemorrhage and 41 (2%) had inhospital death or neurosurgery. There were 162 patients (8%) with steps 1 to 3 criteria. Of the remaining 1,948 patients without steps 1 to 3 criteria, 566 (29%) had anticoagulant or antiplatelet use. Of these patients, 52 (9%) had traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and 15 (3%) died or had neurosurgery. The sensitivity (adjusted for clustering by EMS agency) of steps 1 to 3 criteria was 19.8% (26/131; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5% to 51.2%) for identifying traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and 34.1% (14/41; 95% CI 9.9% to 70.1%) for death or neurosurgery. The additional criterion of anticoagulant or antiplatelet use improved the sensitivity for intracranial hemorrhage (78/131; 59.5%; 95% CI 42.9% to 74.2%) and death or neurosurgery (29/41; 70.7%; 95% CI 61.0% to 78.9%). Relatively few patients met steps 1 to 3 triage criteria. For individuals who did not have steps 1 to 3 criteria, nearly 30% had anticoagulant or antiplatelet use. A relatively high proportion of these patients had intracranial hemorrhage, but a much smaller proportion died or had neurosurgery during hospitalization. Use of steps 1 to 3 triage criteria alone is not sufficient in identifying intracranial hemorrhage and death or neurosurgery in this patient population. The additional criterion of anticoagulant or antiplatelet use improves the sensitivity of the instrument, with only a modest decrease in specificity.

Ability of the Physiologic Criteria of the Field Triage Guidelines to Identify Children Who Need the Resources of a Trauma Center

ABSTRACTBackground: There is limited research on how well the American College of Surgeons/Center for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients assist EMS providers in identifying children who need the resources of a trauma center. Objective: To determine the accuracy of the Physiologic Criteria (Step 1) of the Field Triage Guidelines in identifying injured children who need the resources of a trauma center. Methods: EMS providers who transported injured children 15 years and younger to pediatric trauma centers in 3 mid-sized cities were interviewed regarding patient demographics and the presence or absence of each of the Field Triage Guidelines criteria. Children were considered to have needed a trauma center if they had non-orthopedic surgery within 24 hours, ICU admission, or died. This data was obtained through a structured hospital record review. The over- and under-triage rates and positive likelihood ratios (+LR) were calculated for the overall Physiologic Criteria and each individual criterion. Results: Interviews were conducted for 5,610 pediatric patients; outcome data were available for 5,594 (99.7%): 5% of all patients needed the resources of a trauma center and 19% met the physiologic criteria. Using the physiologic criteria alone, 51% of children who needed a trauma center would have been under-triaged and 18% would have been over-triaged (+LR 2.8, 95% CI 2.4–3.2). Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) < 14 had a +LR of 14.3 (95% CI 11.2–18.3), with EMS not obtaining a GCS in 4% of cases. 54% of those with an EMS GCS < 14 had an initial ED GCS < 14. Abnormal respiratory rate (RR) had a +LR of 2.2 (95% CI 1.8–2.6), with EMS not obtaining a RR in 5% of cases. 41% of those with an abnormal EMS RR had an abnormal initial ED RR. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 had a +LR of 3.5 (95% CI 2.5–5.1), with EMS not obtaining a SBP in 20% of cases. SBP was not obtained for 79% of children <1 year, 46% 1–4 years, 7% 5–9 years, and 2% 10–15 years. A total of 19% of those with an EMS SBP < 90 had an initial ED SBP < 90. Conclusions: The Physiologic Criteria are a moderate predictor of trauma center need for children. Missing or inaccurate vital signs may be limiting the predictive value of the Physiologic Criteria.

Do EMS Providers Accurately Ascertain Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Use in Older Adults with Head Trauma?

ABSTRACTObjective: Prehospital provider assessment of the use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications in older adults with head trauma is important. These patients are at increased risk for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and therefore field triage guidelines recommend transporting these patients to centers capable of rapid evaluation and treatment. Our objective was to evaluate EMS ascertainment of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication use in older adults with head trauma. Methods: A retrospective study of older adults with head trauma was conducted throughout Sacramento County. All 5 transporting EMS agencies and all 11 hospitals in the county were included in the study, which ran from January 2012 to December 2012. Patients ≥55 years who were transported to a hospital by EMS after head trauma were included. We excluded patients transferred between two facilities, patients with penetrating head trauma, prisoners, and patients with unmatched hospital data. Anticoagulant and antiplatelet use were categorized as: warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban), aspirin, and other antiplatelet agents (e.g., clopidogrel and ticagrelor). We calculated the percent agreement and kappa statistic for binary variables between EMS and emergency department (ED)/hospital providers. A kappa statistic ≥0.60 was considered acceptable agreement. Results: After excluding 174 (7.6%) patients, 2,110 patients were included for analysis; median age was 73 years (interquartile range 62–85 years) and 1,259 (60%) were male. Per ED/hospital providers, the use of any anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent was identified in 595 (28.2%) patients. Kappa statistics between EMS and ED/hospital providers for the specific agents were: 0.76 (95% CI 0.71–0.82) for warfarin, 0.45 (95% CI 0.19–0.71) for DOAC agents, 0.33 (95% CI 0.28–0.39) for aspirin, and 0.51 (95% CI 0.42–0.60) for other antiplatelet agents. Conclusions: The use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications in older adults who are transported by EMS for head trauma is common. EMS and ED/hospital providers have acceptable agreement with preinjury warfarin use but not with DOAC, aspirin, and other antiplatelet use.

Prospective Validation of the National Field Triage Guidelines for Identifying Seriously Injured Persons

The national field trauma triage guidelines have been widely implemented in US trauma systems, but never prospectively validated. We sought to prospectively validate the guidelines, as applied by out-of-hospital providers, for identifying high-risk trauma patients. This was an out-of-hospital prospective cohort study from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 with 44 Emergency Medical Services agencies in 7 counties in 2 states. We enrolled injured patients transported to 28 acute care hospitals, including 7 major trauma centers (Level I and II trauma hospitals) and 21 nontrauma hospitals. The primary exposure term was Emergency Medical Services' use of one or more field triage criteria in the national field triage guidelines. Outcomes included Injured Severity Score ≥16 (primary) and critical resource use within 24 hours of emergency department arrival (secondary). We enrolled 53,487 injured children and adults transported by Emergency Medical Services to an acute care hospital, 17,633 of which were sampled for the primary analysis; 13.9% met field triage guidelines, 3.1% had Injury Severity Score ≥16, and 1.7% required early critical resources. The sensitivity and specificity of the field triage guidelines were 66.2% (95% CI, 60.2-71.7%) and 87.8% (95% CI, 87.7-88.0%) for Injury Severity Score ≥16 and 80.1% (95% CI, 65.8-89.4%) and 87.3% (95% CI 87.1-87.4%) for early critical resource use. Triage guideline sensitivity decreased with age, from 87.4% in children to 51.8% in older adults. The national field triage guidelines are relatively insensitive for identifying seriously injured patients and patients requiring early critical interventions, particularly among older adults.

Collecting information from the scene of a motor vehicle collision: The mechanism of injury

While dealing with motor vehicle collision (MVC) victims, the Paramedics on-scene make patient management decisions based on assessment of the physiological parameters, anatomic site of injury, mechanism of injury (MOI), and some special considerations (age and underlying illnesses). In victims with normal physiological and anatomical parameters, and no alarming consideration, the MOI alone is found to be an independent predictor of mortality and functional impairment (2, 3); the Emergency Physician can utilize such information to guide further management of the MVC victims. Information concerning the MOI mostly comes from the Paramedics who retrieved the patient from the crash scene. The purpose of this review is to explore the injury-predictive mechanisms of MVC and to guide the Paramedics in conveying such vital information to the Emergency Physician during handover process. A literature search was made using the online search engine PubMed to identify studies exploring the injury-predictive mechanisms of MVC. Keyword combinations were used that included: Motor/Vehicle/Collision/Road/Traffic/Accidents/Trauma/Mechanism of injury. Auto vs. pedestrian and Motorcycle crashes were excluded. A total of 8 articles were found to be relevant. The mechanisms of MVC which are highly predictive of a significant occult injury include ejection from vehicle (1,4,5), intrusion of the passenger compartment more than 12 inches (1,2,4), prolonged extrication time &gt;20 minutes (4,5), death in the same passenger compartment (1,5), high speed crashes (4), deformity of the steering wheel (2), and rollover causing significant intrusion or ejection of the victim (1). Paramedics reporting the aforementioned crash-specific variables would alert the Emergency Physician and help him better deal with MVC victims who have normal physiological and anatomical parameters, and no alarming considerations. Provision of MVC scene photographs to the emergency physician could be a future research project to assess its impact on altering patient management and outcome.

Improving early identification of the high-risk elderly trauma patient by emergency medical services

We sought to (1) define the high-risk elderly trauma patient based on prognostic differences associated with different injury patterns and (2) derive alternative field trauma triage guidelines that mesh with national field triage guidelines to improve identification of high-risk elderly patients. This was a retrospective cohort study of injured adults ≥65 years transported by 94 EMS agencies to 122 hospitals in 7 regions from 1/1/2006 through 12/31/2008. We tracked current field triage practices by EMS, patient demographics, out-of-hospital physiology, procedures and mechanism of injury. Outcomes included Injury Severity Score≥16 and specific anatomic patterns of serious injury using abbreviated injury scale score ≥3 and surgical interventions. In-hospital mortality was used as a measure of prognosis for different injury patterns. 33,298 injured elderly patients were transported by EMS, including 4.5% with ISS≥16, 4.8% with serious brain injury, 3.4% with serious chest injury, 1.6% with serious abdominal-pelvic injury and 29.2% with serious extremity injury. In-hospital mortality ranged from 18.7% (95% CI 16.7-20.7) for ISS≥16 to 2.9% (95% CI 2.6-3.3) for serious extremity injury. The alternative triage guidelines (any positive criterion from the current guidelines, GCS≤14 or abnormal vital signs) outperformed current field triage practices for identifying patients with ISS≥16: sensitivity (92.1% [95% CI 89.6-94.1%] vs. 75.9% [95% CI 72.3-79.2%]), specificity (41.5% [95% CI 40.6-42.4%] vs. 77.8% [95% CI 77.1-78.5%]). Sensitivity decreased for individual injury patterns, but was higher than current triage practices. High-risk elderly trauma patients can be defined by ISS≥16 or specific non-extremity injury patterns. The field triage guidelines could be improved to better identify high-risk elderly trauma patients by EMS, with a reduction in triage specificity.

Validation of prehospital trauma triage criteria for motor vehicle collisions

Triage of an injured patient to an appropriate trauma center can have an impact on morbidity and mortality. We sought to validate the 2012 national field triage guidelines for motor vehicle crashes. This is a retrospective cross-sectional study using the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System. Vehicle damage criteria proposed as prehospital triage guidelines were correlated with injury severity. There were 85,761 individuals representing 29,397,234 occupants in car crashes from 2003 to 2008. Of the patients, 3.8% met physiologic Step 1 criteria with a mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.1 to 20.9); Step 1 had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 20.8% (95% CI, 20.1-21.4%) for severe injury (ISS > 15). Of the patients, 0.43% met anatomic Step 2 criteria alone, with a mean ISS of 18.1 (95% CI, 16.4-19.8) and a PPV of 48.5% (95% CI, 46.8-50.1%). Step 3 criteria include injury mechanism; 3.7% of the patients met one of these criteria alone with a mean ISS of 5.1 (95% CI, 4.4-5.8) and a PPV of 9.7% (95% CI, 9.3-10.2%).Patients who met only Step 3 criteria were examined to determine crash characteristics that predict severe injury. Intrusion of greater than 12 inches had a PPV of 10.4% (95% CI, 9.5-11.3); steering wheel collapse had a PPV of 25.7% (95% CI, 23.0-28.4%). Older patients (age > 55 years) who met Step 3 mechanism criteria had higher predictive values for injury for nearly all crash characteristics. Injury mechanism criteria alone predict significant injury in a substantial proportion of patients who did not meet the physiologic or anatomic criteria. Vehicular crash data could improve the ability of emergency medical service providers to triage injured occupants. Consideration of transport to a trauma center should be given for elderly patients and drivers with steering wheel collapse. Epidemiologic study, level III.

Abstract 208: Emergency Medical Service Resuscitative Interventions in North-Central West Virginia Trauma Activation Criteria Patients: A Ten Year Experience

Introduction: West Virginia (WV) is the second most rural state, with 51.3% of the population living in a rural area and 97.3% of the land area considered rural by the US Census Bureau. West Virginia University (WVU) MedCom provides medical command for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in 26 north-eastern WV counties. EMS transport times often exceed 20 minutes in rural counties. However, little is known about the specific provider capabilities and interventions that occur in the rural pre-hospital setting. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational review of EMS interventions for “trauma activation criteria patients” (based on CDC Field Triage Guidelines) in the WVU MedCom database. Trauma activation criteria EMS encounters from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2011 were analyzed for EMS provider capability, receiving hospital capability, and pre-hospital resuscitative interventions. Results: There were 11,853 patients available for analysis in the time period. Basic Life Support (BLS) providers provided 21.0% of the care. The distribution of receiving Trauma Centers was as follows: 83.2% Level I, 4.7% Level II, 3.9% Level III, 5.0% Level IV; 3.2% were taken to a facility without trauma center designation. Airway intervention occurred in 7.5% of patients; 2.3% had endotracheal tube (ETT) placement (0.88% had failed ETT placement), 0.34% had King/Combi-tube placement, and 4.0% had positive pressure ventilation with bag valve mask. Vascular access was attempted in 78.7% of the patients; 73.0% had vascular access established (72.9% by IV and 0.08% by intra-osseous access) and 5.1% had an IV fluid bolus administered. CPR was performed on 1.0% of the patients and needle thoracostomy was performed on 0.32% of the patients. Discussion: In rural north-central WV, BLS responders provided the pre-hospital care to 1 in 5 patients. Although treatment at a Level I Trauma Center has been shown to decrease patient mortality by 25%, only 83.2% of trauma patients in rural north-central WV were initially treated at a Level I Trauma Center. Pre-hospital airway intervention was needed in 7.5% of patients. Vascular access was established in only 73.0%; 5.1% received a fluid bolus. Additional studies will be needed to assess the impact of these treatments on patient outcomes.

The Cost Of Overtriage: More Than One-Third Of Low-Risk Injured Patients Were Taken To Major Trauma Centers

Regionalized trauma care has been widely implemented in the United States, with field triage by emergency medical services (EMS) playing an important role in identifying seriously injured patients for transport to major trauma centers. In this study we estimated hospital-level differences in the adjusted cost of acute care for injured patients transported by 94 EMS agencies to 122 hospitals in 7 regions, overall and by injury severity. Among 301,214 patients, the average adjusted per episode cost of care was $5,590 higher in a level 1 trauma center than in a nontrauma hospital. We found hospital-level differences in cost among patients with minor, moderate, and serious injuries. Of the 248,342 low-risk patients-those who did not meet field triage guidelines for transport to trauma centers-85,155 (34.3 percent) were still transported to major trauma centers, accounting for up to 40 percent of acute injury costs. Adhering to field triage guidelines that minimize the overtriage of low-risk injured patients to major trauma centers could save up to $136.7 million annually in the seven regions we studied.

Does EMS Perceived Anatomic Injury Predict Trauma Center Need?

Objective. Our objective was to determine the predictive value of the anatomic step of the 2011 Field Triage Decision Scheme for identifying trauma center need. Methods. Emergency medical services (EMS) providers caring for injured adults transported to regional trauma centers in three midsized communities were interviewed over two years. Patients were included, regardless of injury severity, if they were at least 18 years old and were transported by EMS with a mechanism of injury that was an assault, motor vehicle or motorcycle crash, fall, or pedestrian or bicyclist struck. The interview was conducted upon emergency department (ED) arrival and collected physiologic condition and anatomic injury data. Patients who met the physiologic criteria were excluded. Trauma center need was defined as nonorthopedic surgery within 24 hours, intensive care unit admission, or death prior to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed by calculating descriptive statistics, including positive likelihood ratios (+LRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. A total of 11,892 interviews were conducted. One was excluded because of missing outcome data and 1,274 were excluded because they met the physiologic step. EMS providers identified 1,167 cases that met the anatomic criteria, of which 307 (26%) needed the resources of a trauma center (38% sensitivity, 91% specificity, +LR 4.4; CI: 3.9–4.9). Criteria with a +LR ≥5 were flail chest (9.0; CI: 4.1–19.4), paralysis (6.8; CI: 4.2–11.2), two or more long-bone fractures (6.3; CI: 4.5–8.9), and amputation (6.1; CI: 1.5–24.4). Criteria with a +LR >2 and <5 were penetrating injury (4.8; CI: 4.2–5.6) and skull fracture (4.8; CI: 3.0–7.7). Only pelvic fracture (1.9; CI: 1.3–2.9) had a +LR less than 2. Conclusions. The anatomic step of the Field Triage Guidelines as determined by EMS providers is a reasonable tool for determining trauma center need. Use of EMS perceived pelvic fracture as an indicator for trauma center need should be reevaluated. Key words: wounds and injury; triage; emergency medical services; emergency medical technicians

Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published significant data and trends related to the national public health burden associated with trauma and injury. In the United States (U.S.), injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1–44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries resulted in an emergency department (ED) evaluation; 5.4 million (18%) of these patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS).1 EMS providers determine the severity of injury and begin initial management at the scene. The decisions to transport injured patients to the appropriate hospital are made through a process known as “field triage.” Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process though its “Field Triage Decision Scheme.” In 2005, the CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), collaborated with ASC-COT to convene the initial meeting of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme. This revised version was published in 2006 by ASC-COT, and in 2009 the CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rational for revising the field triage criteria entitled, “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients.”2–3 In 2011, the CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines and recommend any needed changes. We present the methodology, findings and updated guidelines from the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) from the 2011 Panel along with commentary on the burden of injury in the U.S., and the role emergency physicians have in impacting morbidity and mortality at the population level.

Optimal trauma care system in Korea

Trauma is the leading cause of mortality and disability for Koreans under age 44. In Korea, 35.2% of trauma deaths are preventable. Currently, a trauma care system is just beginning to be established in Korea. Optimal trauma care systems have the potential to significantly reduce trauma-related mortality. For patients with severe injuries, getting care at a trauma center lowers the risk of mortality by 15-25%. An optimal trauma care system provides care with a wellfunctioning, comprehensive system from pre-hospital trauma care through the rehabilitation stages. A trauma care system should also include disaster preparedness and education and training to the public, and to paramedics and trauma-related medical personnel. An optimal trauma care system will give the right treatment to the right patients at the right place and time. The components of optimal trauma systems include trauma center designation; the existence of trauma advisory groups; trauma registry use for quality control; current field triage guidelines; trauma system involvement in emergency preparedness planning; and national funding sources.

Predicting severe injury using vehicle telemetry data

In 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standardized collision data collected by event data recorders, which may help determine appropriate emergency medical service (EMS) response. Previous models (e.g., General Motors ) predict severe injury (Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 15) using occupant demographics and collision data. Occupant information is not automatically available, and 12% of calls from advanced automatic collision notification providers are unanswered. To better inform EMS triage, our goal was to create a predictive model only using vehicle collision data. Using the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System data set, we included front-seat occupants in late-model vehicles (2000 and later) in nonrollover and rollover crashes in years 2000 to 2010. Telematic (change in velocity, direction of force, seat belt use, vehicle type and curb weight, as well as multiple impact) and nontelematic variables (maximum intrusion, narrow impact, and passenger ejection) were included. Missing data were multiply imputed. The University of Washington model was tested to predict severe injury before application of guidelines (Step 0) and for occupants who did not meet Steps 1 and 2 criteria (Step 3) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Field Triage Guidelines. A probability threshold of 20% was chosen in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. There were 28,633 crashes, involving 33,956 vehicles and 52,033 occupants, of whom 9.9% had severe injury. At Step 0, the University of Washington model sensitivity was 40.0% and positive predictive value (PPV) was 20.7%. At Step 3, the sensitivity was 32.3 % and PPV was 10.1%. Model analysis excluding nontelematic variables decreased sensitivity and PPV. The sensitivity of the re-created General Motors model was 38.5% at Step 0 and 28.1% at Step 3. We designed a model using only vehicle collision data that was predictive of severe injury at collision notification and in the field and was comparable with an existing model. These models demonstrate the potential use of advanced automatic collision notification in planning EMS response. Prognostic study, level II.

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury transferred to a Level I or II trauma center

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or greater, who are indirectly transported from the scene of injury to a nontrauma center can experience delays to definitive neurosurgical management. Transport to a hospital with appropriate initial emergency department treatment and rapid admission has been shown to reduce mortality in a state's trauma system. This study was conducted to see if the same finding holds with a nationally representative sample of patients with severe TBI seen at Level I and II trauma centers. This study is based on adult (≥18 years), severe TBI patients treated in a nationally representative sample of Level I and II trauma centers, submitting data to the National Trauma Databank National Sample Program from 2007 to 2009. We analyzed independent variables including age, sex, primary payer, race, ethnicity, mode of transport, injury type (blunt vs. penetrating), mechanism of injury, trauma center level, head AIS, initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and systolic blood pressure by transfer status. The primary outcome variable was inpatient death, with discharge disposition, neurosurgical procedures, and mean hospital, intensive care unit, and ventilator days serving as secondary outcomes. After exclusion criteria were applied (ISS < 16; age < 18 years; GCS motor score = 6; non-head AIS score ≥ 3; head AIS < 3; patients with missing transfer status, and death on arrival), a weighted sample of 51,300 (16%) patients was eligible for analysis. In bivariate analyses, transferred patients were older (≥60 years), white, insured, less severely injured (head AIS score ≤ 4, ISS ≤ 25), and less likely to have sustained penetrating trauma (p < 0.001). After controlling for all variables, direct transport, 1 or more comorbidities, advanced age, head AIS score, intracranial hemorrhage, and firearm injury remained significant predictors of death. Being transferred (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96) lowered the risk of death. Patients with severe TBI who were transferred to a Level I or II trauma center had lower injury severity, including less penetrating trauma, and, as a result, were less likely to die compared with patients who were directly admitted to a Level I or II trauma center. The results may demonstrate adherence with the current Guidelines for Prehospital Management of Traumatic Brain Injury and Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients, which recommend the direct transport of patients with severe TBI to the highest level trauma center. Patients with severe TBI who cannot be taken to a trauma center should be stabilized at a nontrauma center and then transferred to a Level I or II trauma center. Regional and national trauma databases should consider collecting information on patient outcomes at referral facilities and total transport time after injury, to better address the outcomes of patient triage decisions. Prognostic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Inappropriate Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Transports: Results of a National Cohort Utilization Review

Background. Medical transport using helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) has rapidly proliferated over the past decade. Because of issues of cost and safety, appropriate utilization is of increasing concern. Objective. This study sought to describe the medical appropriateness of HEMS transports, using established guidelines, in a large national patient cohort. Methods. A review was performed of all flights designated as inappropriate by a large national air medical company, Air Evac EMS Inc. (which operates Air Evac Lifeteam [AEL]), for the period from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. Every flight was reviewed initially through a resource utilization process as well as a utilization review process. Medical appropriateness review criteria were derived from the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual and industry guidelines outlined by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems (CAMTS), Air Medical Physicians Association (AMPA) position papers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Guidelines for Field Triage, and published clinical peer-reviewed articles, as well as previous interactions with Medicare contractors and reimbursement appeal decisions. Higher scrutiny was given to flights of <30 or >100 miles. Records indicating a possible inappropriate flight (i.e., review criteria were not satisfied, but special circumstances existed) were further reviewed by a senior quality assurance/quality improvement (QA/QI) nurse and/or senior medical director and were categorized. Results. During the study period, 27,697 flights were completed and reviewed, with 582 (2.1%) flights identified for further review by a senior QA/QI nurse and/or senior medical director. Of those, 367 (1.3%) were determined to be medically inappropriate flights. Inappropriate flights were most often on-scene flights (59.9%), were most often for adult patients (92.9%; median age 56.9 years; 25–75% interquartile range 42–75 years), and most often represented medical diagnoses (57.8%). Conclusions. Based on established criteria, only 1.3% of total flights were determined to be inappropriate. This large national cohort demonstrated compliance with current industry standards.

Compliance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Field Triage Guidelines in an Established Trauma System

Regionalization of trauma care reduces mortality and has clear guidelines for transport to the highest level of trauma care. Whether prehospital providers follow the CDC triage algorithm remains to be determined. We performed a 5-year retrospective cohort analysis of linked data from Washington State's Central Region Trauma Registry (CRTR) and King County Emergency Medical Services (KCEMS). Patients were analyzed based on transport to their designated hospital, as determined by geocode mapping, or directly to the level I center (no level II center is available in this region). Of the 12,106 patients in the study, 5,976 (49.4%) were transported directly to a level I center from the scene. Of the remaining 6,130 patients initially transported to level III to V centers, 5,024 (41.5%) remained in the respective level III to V centers and 1,106 (9.1%) were transferred to the level I center. Patients transported directly to a level I center were more likely to be male, younger, have a penetrating injury, lower scene Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), lower scene blood pressure, and be more severely injured. Level I direct scene transport was significantly less likely for older patients. Compared with patients ages 18 to 45, the adjusted odds ratio for direct transport to the level I center was 0.7 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.83) for patients aged 46 to 55 years; 0.47 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.57) for those 56 to 65 years; 0.28 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.34) for patients 66 to 80 years; and 0.11 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.14) for those older than 81 years. Prehospital providers follow physiologic, anatomic, and mechanistic parameters in steps 1 to 3 of the CDC field triage guidelines. However, contrary to the special considerations guideline in step 4, older age was associated with transport to the lower level of trauma care in our region.