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.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes of a Disruption and Disconnection of the Pancreatic Duct in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Cohort Study in 896 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Necrotizing pancreatitis may result in a disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) with the potential for long-lasting negative impact on a patient's clinical outcome. There is a lack of detailed data on the full clinical spectrum of DPD, which is critical for the development of better diagnostic and treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a long-term post hoc analysis of a prospectively collected nationwide cohort of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2005-2015). The median follow-up after hospital admission was 75 months (P25-P75: 41-151). Clinical outcomes of patients with and without DPD were compared using regression analyses, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive features for DPD were explored. RESULTS: DPD was confirmed in 243 (27%) of the 896 patients and resulted in worse clinical outcomes during both the patient's initial admission and follow-up. During hospital admission, DPD was associated with an increased rate of new-onset intensive care unit admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-3.93), new-onset organ failure (aOR 2.26; 95% CI 1.45-3.55), infected necrosis (aOR 4.63; 95% CI 2.87-7.64), and pancreatic interventions (aOR 7.55; 95% CI 4.23-13.96). During long-term follow-up, DPD increased the risk of pancreatic intervention (aOR 9.71; 95% CI 5.37-18.30), recurrent pancreatitis (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.32-3.29), chronic pancreatitis (aOR 2.73; 95% CI 1.47-5.15), and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (aOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.05-2.53). Central or subtotal pancreatic necrosis on computed tomography (OR 9.49; 95% CI 6.31-14.29) and a high level of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours after admission (per 10-point increase, OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) were identified as independent predictors for developing DPD. DISCUSSION: At least 1 of every 4 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis experience DPD, which is associated with detrimental, short-term and long-term interventions, and complications. Central and subtotal pancreatic necrosis and high levels of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours are independent predictors for DPD.

The influence of inter-hospital transfers on mortality in severely injured patients.

PURPOSE: The importance of treating severely injured patients in higher-level trauma centers is undisputable. However, it is uncertain whether severely injured patients that were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center (i.e., undertriage) benefit from being transferred to a higher-level trauma center. METHODS: This observational study included all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score ≥ 16) that were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center within eight ambulance regions. The exposure of interest was whether a patient was transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Primary outcomes were 24-h and 30-day mortality. Generalized linear models including inverse probability weights for several potential confounders were constructed to evaluate the association between transfer status and mortality. RESULTS: We included 165,404 trauma patients that were transported with high priority to a trauma center, of which 3932 patients were severely injured. 1065 (27.1%) patients were transported to a lower-level trauma center of which 322 (30.2%) were transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Transferring undertriaged patients to a higher-level trauma center was significantly associated with reduced 24-h (relative risk [RR] 0.26, 95%-CI 0.10-0.68) and 30-day mortality (RR 0.65, 0.46-0.92). Similar results were observed in patients with critical injuries (24-h: RR 0.35, 0.16-0.77; 30-day: RR 0.55, 0.37-0.80) and patients with traumatic brain injury (24-h: RR 0.31, 0.11-0.83; 30-day: RR 0.66, 0.46-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of the undertriaged patients are transferred to a higher-level trauma center. An inter-hospital transfer appears to be safe and may improve the survival of severely injured patients initially transported to a lower-level trauma center.

Evaluating pre-hospital triage and decision-making in patients who died within 30 days post-trauma: A multi-site, multi-center, cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluating 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 METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Between 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%]). CONCLUSION: Approximately 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.

The impact of prehospital time intervals on mortality in moderately and severely injured patients.

BACKGROUND: Modern trauma systems and emergency medical services aim to reduce prehospital time intervals to achieve optimal outcomes. However, current literature remains inconclusive on the relationship between time to definitive treatment and mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between prehospital time and mortality. METHODS: All moderately and severely injured trauma patients (i.e., patients with an Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater) who were transported from the scene of injury to a trauma center by ground ambulances of the participating emergency medical services between 2015 and 2017 were included. Exposures of interest were total prehospital time, on-scene time, and transport time. Outcomes were 24-hour and 30-day mortality. Generalized linear models including inverse probability weights for several potential confounders were constructed. A generalized additive model was constructed to enable visual inspection of the association. RESULTS: We included 22,525 moderately and severely injured patients. Twenty-four-hour and 30-day mortality were 1.3% and 7.3%, respectively. On-scene time per minute was significantly associated with 24-hour (relative risk [RR], 1.029; 95% confidence interval, 1.018-1.040) and 30-day mortality (RR, 1.013; 1.008-1.017). We found that this association was also present in patients with severe injuries, traumatic brain injury, severe abdominal injury, and stab or gunshot wound. An on-scene time of 20 minutes or longer demonstrated a strong association with 24-hour (RR, 1.797; 1.406-2.296) and 30-day mortality (RR, 1.298; 1.180-1.428). Total prehospital (24-hour: RR, 0.998; 0.990-1.007; 30-day: RR, 1.000, 0.997-1.004) and transport (24-hour: RR, 0.996; 0.982-1.010; 30-day: RR, 0.995; 0.989-1.001) time were not associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: A prolonged on-scene time is associated with mortality in moderately and severely injured patients, which suggests that a reduced on-scene time may be favorable for these patients. In addition, transport time was found not to be associated with mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; level III.

Evaluating the effect of driving distance to the nearest higher level trauma centre on undertriage: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is of great importance that emergency medical services professionals transport trauma patients in need of specialised care to higher level trauma centres to achieve optimal patient outcomes. Possibly, undertriage is more likely to occur in patients with a longer distance to the nearest higher level trauma centre. This study aims to determine the association between driving distance and undertriage. METHOD: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2015 to December 2017. All trauma patients in need of specialised care that were transported to a trauma centre by emergency medical services professionals from eight ambulance regions in the Netherlands were included. Patients with critical resource use or an Injury Severity Score ≥16 were defined as in need of specialised care. Driving distance was calculated between the scene of injury and the nearest higher level trauma centre. Undertriage was defined as transporting a patient in need of specialised care to a lower level trauma centre. Generalised linear models adjusting for confounders were constructed to determine the association between driving distance to the nearest higher level trauma centre per 1 and 10 km and undertriage. A sensitivity analysis was conducted with a generalised linear model including inverse probability weights. RESULTS: 6101 patients, of which 4404 patients with critical resource use and 3760 patients with an Injury Severity Score ≥16, were included. The adjusted generalised linear model demonstrated a significant association between a 1 km (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.05) and 10 kilometre (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.42 to 1.58) increase in driving distance and undertriage in patients with critical resource use. Also in patients with an Injury Severity Score ≥16, a significant association between driving distance (1 km (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.07), 10 km (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.71 to 1.95)) and undertriage was observed. CONCLUSION: Patients in need of specialised care are less likely to be transported to the appropriate trauma centre with increasing driving distance. Our results suggest that emergency medical services professionals incorporate driving distance into their decision making regarding transport destinations, although distance is not included in the triage protocol.

Optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Following an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis. DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events. RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25-P75: 46-222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)). CONCLUSION: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge.

Priority accuracy by dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals in trauma patients: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Priority-setting by dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals has a major impact on pre-hospital triage and times of trauma patients. Patients requiring specialized care benefit from expedited transport to higher-level trauma centers, while transportation of these patients to lower-level trauma centers is associated with higher mortality rates. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of priority-setting by dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals. METHODS: This observational study included trauma patients transported from the scene of injury to a trauma center. Priority-setting was evaluated in terms of the proportion of patients requiring specialized trauma care assigned with the highest priority (i.e., sensitivity), undertriage, and overtriage. Patients in need of specialized care were defined by a composite resource-based endpoint. An Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 served as a secondary reference standard. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2017, records of 114,459 trauma patients were collected, of which 3327 (2.9%) patients were in need of specialized care according to the primary reference standard. Dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals assigned 83.8% and 74.5% of these patients with the highest priority, respectively. Undertriage rates ranged between 22.7 and 65.5% in the different prioritization subgroups. There were differences between dispatch and transport priorities in 17.7% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients that required specialized care were assigned with the highest priority by the dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals. Highly accurate priority criteria could improve the quality of pre-hospital triage.

The impact of the Trauma Triage App on pre-hospital trauma triage: design and protocol of the stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized TESLA trial.

BACKGROUND: Field triage of trauma patients is crucial to get the right patient to the right hospital within a particular time frame. Minimization of undertriage, overtriage, and interhospital transfer rates could substantially reduce mortality rates, life-long disabilities, and costs. Identification of patients in need of specialized trauma care is predominantly based on the judgment of Emergency Medical Services professionals and a pre-hospital triage protocol. The Trauma Triage App is a smartphone application that includes a prediction model to aid Emergency Medical Services professionals in the identification of patients in need of specialized trauma care. The aim of this trial is to assess the impact of this new digital approach to field triage on the primary endpoint undertriage. METHODS: The Trauma triage using Supervised Learning Algorithms (TESLA) trial is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial with eight clusters defined as Emergency Medical Services regions. These clusters are an integral part of five inclusive trauma regions. Injured patients, evaluated on-scene by an Emergency Medical Services professional, suspected of moderate to severe injuries, will be assessed for eligibility. This unidirectional crossover trial will start with a baseline period in which the default pre-hospital triage protocol is used, after which all clusters gradually implement the Trauma Triage App as an add-on to the existing triage protocol. The primary endpoint is undertriage on patient and cluster level and is defined as the transportation of a severely injured patient (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16) to a lower-level trauma center. Secondary endpoints include overtriage, hospital resource use, and a cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: The TESLA trial will assess the impact of the Trauma Triage App in clinical practice. This novel approach to field triage will give new and previously undiscovered insights into several isolated components of the diagnostic strategy to get the right trauma patient to the right hospital. The stepped-wedge design allows for within and between cluster comparisons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR7243. Registered 30 May 2018, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7038.

Accuracy of pre-hospital trauma triage and field triage decision rules in children (P2-T2 study): an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate pre-hospital trauma triage is crucial to enable optimal care in inclusive trauma systems. Transport of children in need of specialised trauma care to lower-level trauma centres is associated with adverse patient outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of paediatric field triage based on patient destination and triage tools. METHODS: We did a multisite observational study (P2-T2) of all children (aged <16 years) transported with high priority by ambulance from the scene of injury to any emergency department in seven of 11 inclusive trauma regions in the Netherlands. Diagnostic accuracy based on the initial transport destination was evaluated in terms of undertriage rate (ie, the proportion of patients in need of specialised trauma care who were initially transported to a lower-level paediatric or adult trauma centre) and overtriage rate (ie, the proportion of patients not requiring specialised trauma care who were transported to a level-I [highest level] paediatric trauma centre). The Dutch National Protocol of Ambulance Services and Field Triage Decision Scheme triage protocols were externally validated using data from this cohort against an anatomical (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥16) and a resource-based reference standard. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, 12 915 children (median age 10·3 years, IQR 4·2-13·6) were transported to the emergency department with injuries. 4091 (31·7%) patients were admitted to hospital, of whom 129 (3·2%) patients had an ISS of 16 or greater and 227 (5·5%) patients used critical resources within a limited timeframe. Ten patients died within 24 h of arrival at the emergency department. Based on the primary reference standard (ISS ≥16), the undertriage rate was 16·3% (95% CI 10·8-23·7) and the overtriage rate was 21·2% (20·5-22·0). The National Protocol of Ambulance Services had a sensitivity of 53·5% (95% CI 43·9-62·9) and a specificity of 94·0% (93·4-94·6), and the Field Triage Decision Scheme had a sensitivity of 64·5% (54·1-74·1) and a specificity of 84·3% (83·1-85·5). INTERPRETATION: Too many children in need of specialised care were transported to lower-level paediatric or adult trauma centres, which is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Current protocols cannot accurately discriminate between patients at low and high risk, and highly sensitive and child-specific triage tools need to be developed to ensure the right patient is transported to the right hospital. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Innovation Fund Health Insurers.

Development and validation of a novel prediction model to identify patients in need of specialized trauma care during field triage: design and rationale of the GOAT study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate field triage of trauma patients is crucial to transport patients to the right hospital. Mistriage and subsequent interhospital transfers should be minimized to reduce avoidable mortality, life-long disabilities, and costs. Availability of a prehospital triage tool may help to identify patients in need of specialized trauma care and to determine the optimal transportation destination. METHODS: The GOAT (Gradient Boosted Trauma Triage) study is a prospective, multi-site, cross-sectional diagnostic study. Patients transported by at least five ground Emergency Medical Services to any receiving hospital within the Netherlands are eligible for inclusion. The reference standards for the need of specialized trauma care are an Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 and early critical resource use, which will both be assessed by trauma registrars after the final diagnosis is made. Variable selection will be based on ease of use in practice and clinical expertise. A gradient boosting decision tree algorithm will be used to develop the prediction model. Model accuracy will be assessed in terms of discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (intercept, slope, and plot) on individual participant's data from each participating cluster (i.e., Emergency Medical Service) through internal-external cross-validation. A reference model will be externally validated on each cluster as well. The resulting model statistics will be investigated, compared, and summarized through an individual participant's data meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: The GOAT study protocol describes the development of a new prediction model for identifying patients in need of specialized trauma care. The aim is to attain acceptable undertriage rates and to minimize mortality rates and life-long disabilities.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

Importance: Prehospital trauma triage protocols are used worldwide to get the right patient to the right hospital and thereby improve the chance of survival and avert lifelong disabilities. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma set target levels for undertriage rates of less than 5%. None of the existing triage protocols has been able to achieve this target in isolation. Objective: To develop and validate a new prehospital trauma triage protocol to improve current triage rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, all patients with trauma who were 16 years and older and transported to a trauma center in 2 different regions of the Netherlands were included in the analysis. Data were collected from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, in the Central Netherlands region for the design data cohort and from January 1 through December 31, 2015, in the Brabant region for the validation cohort. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2017, through July 19, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: A new prediction model was developed in the Central Netherlands region based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury. Severe injury was defined as an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. A full-model strategy with penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a model with 8 predictors that were chosen based on clinical reasoning. Accuracy of the developed prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. The model was externally validated in the Brabant region. Results: Using data from 4950 patients with trauma from the Central Netherlands region for the design data set (58.3% male; mean [SD] age, 47 [21] years) and 6859 patients for the validation Brabant region (52.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51 [22] years), the following 8 significant predictors were selected for the prediction model: age; systolic blood pressure; Glasgow Coma Scale score; mechanism criteria; penetrating injury to the head, thorax, or abdomen; signs and/or symptoms of head or neck injury; expected injury in the Abbreviated Injury Scale thorax region; and expected injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale regions. The prediction model showed a C statistic of 0.823 (95% CI, 0.813-0.832) and good calibration. The cutoff point with a minimum specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 49.3%-50.7%) led to a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-90.0%). External validation showed a C statistic of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.814-0.848) and adequate calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model may lower undertriage rates to approximately 10% with an overtriage rate of 50%. The next step should be to implement this prediction model with the use of a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals.

Identification of thoracic injuries by emergency medical services providers among trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Severe thoracic injuries are time sensitive and adequate triage to a facility with a high-level of trauma care is crucial. The emergency medical services (EMS) providers are required to identify patients with a severe thoracic injury to transport the patient to the right hospital. However, identifying these patients on-scene is difficult. The accuracy of prehospital assessment of potential thoracic injury by EMS providers of the ground ambulances is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the assessment of the EMS provider in the identification of a thoracic injury and determine predictors of a severe thoracic injury. METHODS: In this multicentre cohort study, all trauma patients aged 16 and over, transported with a ground erence standard. Prehospital variables were analysed using logistic regression to explore prehospital ambulance to a trauma centre, were evaluated. The diagnostic value of EMS provider judgment was determined using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of ≥ 1 in the thoracic region as ref predictors of a severe thoracic injury (AIS ≥ 3). RESULTS: In total 2766 patients were included, of whom 465 (16.8%) sustained a thoracic injury and 210 (7.6%) a severe thoracic injury. The EMS providers' judgment had a sensitivity of 54.8% and a specificity of 92.6% for the identification of a thoracic injury. Significant independent prehospital predictors were: age, oxygen saturation, Glasgow Coma Scale, fall > 2 m, and suspicion of inhalation trauma or a thoracic injury by the EMS provider. CONCLUSION: EMS providers could identify little over half of the patients with a thoracic injury. A supplementary triage protocol to identify patients with a thoracic injury could improve prehospital triage of these patients. In this supplementary protocol, age, vital signs, and mechanism criteria could be included.

Compliance to prehospital trauma triage protocols worldwide: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical services (EMS) providers must determine the injury severity on-scene, using a prehospital trauma triage protocol, and decide on the most appropriate hospital destination for the patient. Many severely injured patients are not transported to higher-level trauma centres. An accurate triage protocol is the base of prehospital trauma triage; however, ultimately the quality is dependent on the destination decision by the EMS provider. The aim of this systematic review is to describe compliance to triage protocols and evaluate compliance to the different categories of triage protocols. METHODS: An extensive search of MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane library was performed to identify all studies, published before May 2018, describing compliance to triage protocols in a trauma system. The search terms were a combination of synonyms for 'compliance,' 'trauma,' and 'triage'. RESULTS: After selection, 11 articles were included. The studies showed a variety in compliance rates, ranging from 21% to 93% for triage protocols, and 41% to 94% for the different categories. The compliance rate was highest for the criterion: penetrating injury. The category of the protocol with the lowest compliance rate was: vital signs. Compliance rates were lower for elderly patients, compared to adults under the age of 55. The methodological quality of most studies was poor. One study with good methodological quality showed that the triage protocol identified only a minority of severely injured patients, but many of whom were transported to higher-level trauma centres. CONCLUSIONS: The compliance rate ranged from 21% to 94%. Prehospital trauma triage effectiveness could be increased with an accurate triage protocol and improved compliance rates. EMS provider judgment could lower the undertriage rate, especially for severely injured patients meeting none of the criteria. Future research should focus on the improvement of triage protocols and the compliance rate.

Accuracy of Pediatric Trauma Field Triage: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Field triage of pediatric patients with trauma is critical for transporting the right patient to the right hospital. Mortality and lifelong disabilities are potentially attributable to erroneously transporting a patient in need of specialized care to a lower-level trauma center. Objective: To quantify the accuracy of field triage and associated diagnostic protocols used to identify children in need of specialized trauma care. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception to November 6, 2017, for studies describing the accuracy of diagnostic tests to identify children in need of specialized trauma care in a prehospital setting. Identified articles with a study population including patients not transported by emergency medical services were excluded. Quality assessment was performed using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Findings: After deduplication, 1430 relevant articles were assessed, a full-text review of 38 articles was conducted, and 5 of those articles were included. All studies were observational, published between 1996 and 2017, and conducted in the United States, and data collection was prospective in 1 study. Three different protocols were studied that analyzed a combined total of 1222 children in need of specialized trauma care. One protocol was specifically developed for a pediatric out-of-hospital cohort. The percentage of pediatric patients requiring specialized trauma care in each study varied between 2.6% (110 of 4197) and 54.7% (58 of 106). The sensitivity of the prehospital triage tools ranged from 49.1% to 87.3%, and the specificity ranged from 41.7% to 84.8%. No prehospital triage protocol alone complied with the international standard of 95% or greater sensitivity. Undertriage and overtriage rates, representative of the quality of the full diagnostic strategy to transport a patient to the right hospital, were not reported for inclusive trauma systems or emergency medical services regions. Conclusions and Relevance: It is crucial to transport the right patient to the right hospital. Yet the quality of the full diagnostic strategy to determine the optimal receiving hospital is unknown. None of the investigated field triage protocols complied with current sensitivity targets. Improved efforts are needed to develop accurate child-specific tools to prevent undertriage and its potential life-threatening consequences.

Effectiveness of prehospital trauma triage systems in selecting severely injured patients: Is comparative analysis possible?

INTRODUCTION: In an optimal trauma system, prehospital trauma triage ensures transport of the right patient to the right hospital. Incorrect triage results in undertriage and overtriage. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare prehospital trauma triage system quality worldwide and determine effectiveness in terms of undertriage and overtriage for trauma patients. METHODS: A systematic search of Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed, using "trauma", "trauma center," or "trauma system", combined with "triage", "undertriage," or "overtriage", as search terms. All studies describing ground transport and actual destination hospital of patients with and without severe injuries, using prehospital triage, published before November 2017, were eligible for inclusion. To assess the quality of these studies, a critical appraisal tool was developed. RESULTS: A total of 33 articles were included. The percentage of undertriage ranged from 1% to 68%; overtriage from 5% to 99%. Older age and increased geographical distance were associated with undertriage. Mortality was lower for severely injured patients transferred to a higher-level trauma center. The majority of the included studies were of poor methodological quality. The studies of good quality showed poor performance of the triage protocol, but additional value of EMS provider judgment in the identification of severely injured patients. CONCLUSION: In most of the evaluated trauma systems, a substantial part of the severely injured patients is not transported to the appropriate level trauma center. Future research should come up with new innovative ways to improve the quality of prehospital triage in trauma patients.

Remote Iliac Artery Endarterectomy: A Case Series and Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term results of remote iliac artery endarterectomy (RIAE) in 2 vascular referral centers and review existing literature. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 109 consecutive patients (mean age 64.2±10.7 years; 72 men) who underwent 113 RIAE procedures for lower limb ischemia from January 2004 to August 2015 at 2 vascular centers. The majority of limbs (82, 72.6%) had TASC II D lesions (31 TASC II C). Primary outcome measures were primary, assisted primary, and secondary patency. A comprehensive literature search was performed in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify all English-language studies published after 1990 reporting the results of RIAE. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 95 (84.1%) of the 113 procedures. The complication rate was 13.7%, and 30-day mortality was 0%. At 5 years, primary patency was 78.2%, assisted primary patency was 83.4%, and secondary patency was 86.7%. Hemodynamic success was obtained in 91.7% of patients, and clinical improvement was observed in 95.2%. Freedom from major amputation was 94.7% at 5 years. The systematic review comprised 6 studies including 419 RIAEs, and pooled data showed results similar to the current study. CONCLUSION: For external iliac artery occlusions extending into the common femoral artery, RIAE appears to be a valuable hybrid treatment option. It combines acceptable morbidity and low mortality with good long-term patency. It has some advantages over an open surgical iliofemoral bypass or complete endovascular revascularization and could be the best treatment option in selected cases.

Accuracy of Prehospital Triage in Selecting Severely Injured Trauma Patients.

Importance: A major component of trauma care is adequate prehospital triage. To optimize the prehospital triage system, it is essential to gain insight in the quality of prehospital triage of the entire trauma system. Objective: To prospectively evaluate the quality of the field triage system to identify severely injured adult trauma patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prehospital and hospital data of all adult trauma patients during 2012 to 2014 transported with the highest priority by emergency medical services professionals to 10 hospitals in Central Netherlands were prospectively collected. Prehospital data collected by the emergency medical services professionals were matched to hospital data collected in the trauma registry. An Injury Severity Score of 16 or more was used to determine severe injury. Main Outcomes and Measures: The quality and diagnostic accuracy of the field triage protocol and compliance of emergency medical services professionals to the protocol. Results: A total of 4950 trauma patients were evaluated of which 436 (8.8%) patients were severely injured. The undertriage rate based on actual destination facility was 21.6% (95% CI, 18.0-25.7) with an overtriage rate of 30.6% (95% CI, 29.3-32.0). Analysis of the protocol itself, regardless of destination facility, resulted in an undertriage of 63.8% (95% CI, 59.2-68.1) and overtriage of 7.4% (95% CI, 6.7-8.2). The compliance to the field triage trauma protocol was 73% for patients with a level 1 indication. Conclusions and Relevance: More than 20% of the patients with severe injuries were not transported to a level I trauma center. These patients are at risk for preventable morbidity and mortality. This finding indicates the need for improvement of the prehospital triage protocol.