Accuracy of Prehospital Triage of Adult Patients With Traumatic Injuries Following Implementation of a Trauma Triage Intervention.

Importance: Adequate prehospital triage is pivotal to enable optimal care in inclusive trauma systems and reduce avoidable mortality, lifelong disabilities, and costs. A model has been developed to improve the prehospital allocation of patients with traumatic injuries and was incorporated in an application (app) to be implemented in prehospital practice. Objective: To evaluate the association between the implementation of a trauma triage (TT) intervention with an app and prehospital mistriage among adult trauma patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, prospective quality improvement study was conducted in 3 of the 11 Dutch trauma regions (27.3%), with full coverage of the corresponding emergency medical services (EMS) regions participating in this study. Participants included adult patients (age ≥16 years) with traumatic injuries who were transported by ambulance between February 1, 2015, and October 31, 2019, from the scene of injury to any emergency department in the participating trauma regions. Data were analyzed between July 2020 and June 2021. Exposures: Implementation of the TT app and the awareness of need for adequate triage created by its implementation (ie, the TT intervention). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prehospital mistriage, evaluated in terms of undertriage and overtriage. Undertriage was defined as the proportion of patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or greater who were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center (designated to treat patients who are mildly and moderately injured) and overtriage as the proportion of patients with an ISS of less than 16 who were initially transported to a higher-level trauma center (designated to treat patients who are severely injured). Results: A total of 80 738 patients were included (40 427 [50.1%] before and 40 311 [49.9%] after implementation of the intervention), with a median (IQR) age of 63.2 (40.0-79.7) years and 40 132 (49.7%) male patients. Undertriage decreased from 370 of 1163 patients (31.8%) to 267 of 995 patients (26.8%), while overtriage rates did not increase (8202 of 39 264 patients [20.9%] vs 8039 of 39 316 patients [20.4%]). The implementation of the intervention was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk for undertriage (crude risk ratio [RR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99, P = .01; adjusted RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95; P = .004), but the risk for overtriage was unchanged (crude RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .13; adjusted RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.03; P = .49). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, implementation of the TT intervention was associated with improvements in rates of undertriage. Further research is needed to assess whether these findings are generalizable to other trauma systems.

Extension test and ossal point tenderness cannot accurately exclude significant injury in acute elbow trauma.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Elbow injury is a common presentation at the emergency department (ED). There are no guidelines indicating which of these patients require radiography, whereas clinical decision rules for other limb injuries are widely accepted and resulted in less radiography and reduced waiting times. We aim to identify clinical signs that can be used to predict the need for radiography in elbow injury. METHODS: A prospective observational study at 2 ED locations in the Netherlands was performed. For every eligible patient with acute elbow injury, elbow extension and addition of point tenderness at the olecranon, epicondyles, and radial head were evaluated for predicting the need for radiography (primary endpoint). A subgroup of patients was assessed by a blinded second investigator to analyze interobserver variability (secondary endpoint). All patients received anterior-posterior and lateral elbow radiographs. Fractures were treated according to current guidelines and patients were followed at outpatient clinics. RESULTS: In total, 587 patients were included. Normal extension was observed in 174 patients (30%). Normal extension predicted absence of a fracture or isolated fat pad with 88% sensitivity and 55% specificity. Five patients with normal extension had a fracture that required surgery. Absence of point tenderness in patients with normal extension was observed in only 24 patients, of whom 3 showed a fracture and 1 required surgery. Addition of point tenderness to the extension test to predict absence of a fracture or isolated fat pad resulted in 98% sensitivity and 11% specificity. Interobserver analysis for extension and palpation of olecranon, epicondyles, and radial head resulted in κ values between 0.6 and 0.7. CONCLUSION: In contrast with previous studies, ours shows that in acute elbow injury, the extension test alone or in combination with point tenderness assessment does not safely rule out clinically significant injury. Interobserver variability was substantial. We would not recommend the use of the extension test (+/- point tenderness assessment) as a clinical decision rule to guide radiologic diagnostics in acute elbow trauma.