Avoiding Cribari gridlock: The standardized triage assessment tool improves the accuracy of the Cribari matrix method in identifying potential overtriage and undertriage.

BACKGROUND: The Cribari matrix method (CMM) is the standard to identify potential overtriage and undertriage but requires case reviews to correct for the fact that Injury Severity Score does not account for physiology or comorbidities, nor is it well correlated with resource consumption. Further, the secondary reviews introduce undesirable subjectivity. This study assessed if the Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT)-a combination of the CMM and the Need For Trauma Intervention-could more accurately determine overtriage and undertriage than the CMM alone. METHODS: The registry of an American College of Surgeons verified Level I adult trauma center in Texas was queried for all new emergency department traumas 2013 to 2016 (n = 11,110). Binary logistic regressions were used to test the associations between the triage determinations of each metric against indicators of injury severity (risk factors, complications, and mortality) and resource consumption (number of procedures in 3 days and total length of stay). RESULTS: Both metrics were associated with the indicators of injury severity and resource consumption in the expected directions, but STAT had stronger or equivalent associations with all variables tested. Using the CMM, there was 50.4% overtriage and 9.1% undertriage. Using STAT, overtriage was reduced to 30.8% (relative reduction = 38.9%) and undertriage was reduced to 3.3% (relative reduction = 63.7%). CONCLUSION: Using the CMM with secondary case reviews makes valid multi-institutional triage rate comparisons impossible because of the subjective and unstandardized nature of these reviews. STAT's out-of-box triage determinations (i.e., without manual case review) outperformed CMM in almost every tested variable for both over- and undertriage. STAT, an automatic, standardized method offers significant improvements compared to the current subjective system. Further, by accounting for both anatomic injury severity and resource consumption, STAT may allow trauma centers to better allocate resources and predict patient needs with fewer cases requiring manual review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.

Alcohol and drug toxicology screens at time of hospitalization do not predict PTSD or depression after traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for the development of PTSD and depression is critical for intervention and recovery after injury. Given research linking toxicology screens and substance use and the evidenced relationship between substance misuse and distress, the current study aimed to gauge the predictive value of toxicology testing on PTSD and depression. METHODS: Patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center (N = 379) completed the PC-PTSD, PCL-C, and PHQ-8 at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Results showed 52% of tested patients had a positive toxicology test, 51% screened for PTSD, and 54% screened for depression. Positive drug or alcohol toxicology tests were not significantly associated with PTSD or depression. CONCLUSIONS: Toxicology testing may not meaningful predict depression or PTSD in traumatic injury patients. Future research using validated measures of problematic substance use is needed to better understand how misuse may influence the development of psychological distress.