Comparing the Accuracy of Mass Casualty Triage Systems When Used in an Adult Population.

Objective: To use a previously published criterion standard to compare the accuracy of 4 different mass casualty triage systems (Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport [SALT], Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment [START], Triage Sieve, and CareFlight) when used in an emergency department-based adult population. Methods: We performed a prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of adults aged 18 years or older presenting to a single tertiary care hospital emergency department. A co-investigator with prior emergency medical services (EMS) experience observed each subject's initial triage in the emergency department and recorded all data points necessary to assign a triage category using each of the 4 mass casualty triage systems being studied. Subjects' medical records were reviewed after their discharge from the hospital to assign the "correct" triage category using the criterion standard. The 4 mass casualty triage system assignments were then compared to the "correct" assignment. Descriptive statistics were used to compare accuracy and over- and under-triage rates for each triage system. Results: A total of 125 subjects were included in the study. Of those, 53% were male and 59% were transported by private vehicle. When compared to the criterion standard definitions, SALT was found to have the highest accuracy rate (52%; 95% CI 43-60) compared to START (36%; 95% CI 28-44), CareFlight (36%; 95% CI 28-44), and TriageSieve (37%; 95% CI 28-45). SALT also had the lowest under-triage rate (26%; 95% CI 19-34) compared to START (57%; 95% CI 48-66), CareFlight (58%; 95% CI 49-66), and TriageSieve (58%; 95% CI 49-66). SALT had the highest over-triage rate (22%; 95% CI 14-29) compared to START (7%; 95% CI 3-12), CareFlight (6%; 95% CI 2-11) and TriageSieve (6%; 95% CI 2-11). Conclusion: We found that SALT triage most often correctly triaged adult emergency department patients when compared to a previously published criterion standard. While there are no target under- and over-triage rates that have been published for mass casualty triage, all 4 systems had relatively high rates of under-triage.

Evaluation of a Consensus-Based Criterion Standard Definition of Trauma Center Need for Use in Field Triage Research.

Research on field triage of injured patients is limited by the lack of a widely used criterion standard for defining trauma center need. Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 has been a commonly used outcome measure in research for determining trauma center need that has never been validated. A multidisciplinary team recently published a consensus-based criterion standard definition of trauma center need, but this measure has not yet been validated. The objective was to determine if the consensus-based criterion standard can be obtained by medical record review and compare patients identified as needing a trauma center by the consensus-based criterion standard vs. ISS >15. A subanalysis of data collected during a 2-year prospective cohort study of 4,528 adult trauma patients transported by EMS to a single trauma center was conducted. These data included ICD-9-CM codes, treatment times, and other patient care data. Presence of the consensus-based criterion standard was determined for each patient. ISS was calculated based on ICD-9-CM codes assigned for billing. The consensus-based criterion standard could be applied to 4,471 (98.7%) cases. ISS could be determined for 4,506 (99.5%) cases. Based on an ISS >15, 8.9% of cases were identified as needing a trauma center. Of those, only 48.2% met the consensus-based criterion standard. Almost all patients that did not meet the consensus-based criterion standard, but had an ISS >15 were diagnosed with chest (rib fractures (100/205 cases)/pneumothorax (57/205 cases), closed head (without surgical intervention 88/205 cases), vertebral (without spinal cord injury 45/205 cases), and/or extremity injuries (39/205 cases). There were 4,053 cases with an ISS <15. 5.0% of those with an ISS <15 met the consensus-based criterion standard with the majority requiring surgery (139/203 cases) or a blood transfusion (60/203 cases). The kappa coefficient of agreement for ISS and the consensus-based criterion standard was 0.43. We determined that the consensus-based criterion standard could be identified through a medical record review. Use of the consensus-based criterion standard for field triage research will more accurately identify injured patients who need the resources of a trauma center when compared to ISS.

A consensus-based criterion standard for trauma center need.

BACKGROUND: In civilian trauma care, field triage is the process applied by prehospital care providers to identify patients who are likely to have severe injuries and immediately need the resources of a trauma center. Studies of the efficacy of field triage have used various measures to define trauma center need because no "criterion standard" exists, making cross-study comparisons difficult. This study aimed to develop a consensus-based functional criterion standard definition of trauma center need. METHODS: Local and national experts were recruited for participation. Blinded key informant interviews were conducted in order of availability until no new themes emerged. Themes identified during the interviews were used to develop a Modified Delphi survey, which was electronically delivered via Survey Monkey. The trauma center need criteria were refined iteratively based on participant responses. Participants completed additional surveys until there was at least 80% agreement for each criterion. RESULTS: Fourteen experts were recruited. Five participated in key informant interviews. A Modified Delphi survey was administered five times (four modifications based on the expert's responses). After the fifth round, there was at least 82% agreement on each criterion. The final definition included 10 time-specific indicators: major surgery, advanced airway, blood products, admission for spinal cord injury, thoracotomy, pericardiocentesis, cesarean delivery, intracranial pressure monitoring, interventional radiology, and in-hospital death. CONCLUSION: We developed a consensus-based functional criterion standard definition of needing the resources of a trauma center, which may help to standardize field triage research and quality assurance in trauma systems as well as allow for cross study comparisons.