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.

An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England.

BACKGROUND: Many health care systems triage injured patients to major trauma centres (MTCs) or local hospitals by using triage tools and paramedic judgement. Triage tools are typically assessed by whether patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 go to an MTC and whether patients with an ISS < 16 are sent to their local hospital. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity of triage tools, with the optimal balance being unknown. We conducted an economic evaluation of major trauma triage tools to identify which tool would be considered cost-effective by UK decision makers. METHODS: A patient-level, probabilistic, mathematical model of a UK major trauma system was developed. Patients with an ISS ≥ 16 who were only treated at local hospitals had worse outcomes compared to being treated in an MTC. Nine empirically derived triage tools, from a previous study, were examined so we assessed triage tools with realistic trade-offs between triage tool sensitivity and specificity. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each tool and compared to maximum acceptable ICERs (MAICERs) in England. RESULTS: Four tools had ICERs within the normal range of MAICERs used by English decision makers (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). A low sensitivity (28.4%) and high specificity (88.6%) would be cost-effective at the lower end of this range while higher sensitivity (87.5%) and lower specificity (62.8%) was cost-effective towards the upper end of this range. These results were sensitive to the cost of MTC admissions and whether MTCs had a benefit for patients with an ISS between 9 and 15. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effective triage tool depends on the English decision maker's MAICER for this health problem. In the usual range of MAICERs, cost-effective prehospital trauma triage involves clinically suboptimal sensitivity, with a proportion of seriously injured patients (at least 10%) being initially transported to local hospitals. High sensitivity trauma triage requires development of more accurate decision rules; research to establish if patients with an ISS between 9 and 15 benefit from MTCs; or, inefficient use of health care resources to manage patients with less serious injuries at MTCs.

Epidemiology of paediatric moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the main cause of death in children around the world. The last Dutch epidemiological study described the incidence over 10 years ago. Mechanism of injury seems to change with the age of the child, therefore it is important to appreciate different age groups. To be able to lower the impact of childhood TBI, an understanding of current incidence, mechanism of injury and outcome is necessary. METHODS: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted. The Dutch National Trauma Database was used to identify all patients 18 years and younger who were admitted to a Dutch hospital with moderate-severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Score≥3) in the Netherlands, from January 2015 until December 2017. Subanalyses were done for different age groups. RESULTS: In total, 1413 patients were included, of whom 5% died. The incidence rate of moderate-severe TBI was 14/100,000 person years. Median age was 10.4 years. Largest age group was patients <5 years, incidence rate was highest in patients ≥16 years. Falls were more common than road traffic accidents (RTA), but RTAs occurred far more frequently amongst children over 10. RTAs predominantly consisted of bicycle accidents. Mortality rates increased from youngest to oldest age groups, as did the chances of a Glasgow Outcome Scale score of 3. CONCLUSION: Paediatric moderate-severe TBI represents a significant problem in the Netherlands. Falls are the most common mechanism of injury amongst younger children and RTAs amongst older children. Unique for the Netherlands is the vast amount of bicycle accident related injuries.

Incidence, causes and consequences of moderate and severe traumatic brain injury as determined by Abbreviated Injury Score in the Netherlands.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability. Epidemiology seems to be changing. TBIs are increasingly caused by falls amongst elderly, whilst we see less polytrauma due to road traffic accidents (RTA). Data on epidemiology is essential to target prevention strategies. A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted. The Dutch National Trauma Database was used to identify all patients over 17 years old who were admitted to a hospital with moderate and severe TBI (AIS ≥ 3) in the Netherlands from January 2015 until December 2017. Subgroup analyses were done for the elderly and polytrauma patients. 12,295 patients were included in this study. The incidence of moderate and severe TBI was 30/100.000 person-years, 13% of whom died. Median age was 65 years and falls were the most common trauma mechanism, followed by RTAs. Amongst elderly, RTAs consisted mostly of bicycle accidents. Mortality rates were higher for elderly (18%) and polytrauma patients (24%). In this national database more elderly patients who most often sustained the injury due to a fall or an RTA were seen. Bicycle accidents were very frequent, suggesting prevention could be an important aspect in order to decrease morbidity and mortality.

Diagnoses, treatment, and oncologic outcomes in patients with calcaneal malignances: Case series, systematic literature review, and pooled cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Malignant tumors of the calcaneus are rare but pose a treatment challenge. AIMS: (1) describe the demographics of calcaneal malignancies in a large cohort; (2) describe survival after amputation versus limb-salvage surgery for high-grade tumors. METHODS: Study group: a "pooled" cohort of patients with primary calcaneal malignancies treated at two cancer centers (1984-2015) and systematic literature review. Kaplan-Meier analyses described survival across treatment and diagnostic groups; proportional hazards modeling assessed mortality after amputation versus limb salvage. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients (11 treated at our centers and 120 patients from 53 published studies) with a median 36-month follow-up were included. Diagnoses included Ewing sarcoma (41%), osteosarcoma (30%), and chondrosarcoma (17%); 5-year survival rates were 43%, 73% (70%, high grade only), and 84% (60%, high grade only), respectively. Treatment involved amputation in 52%, limb salvage in 27%, and no surgery in 21%. There was no difference in mortality following limb salvage surgery (vs. amputation) for high-grade tumors (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.14-1.05), after adjusting for Ewing sarcoma diagnosis (HR 5.15; 95% CI 1.55-17.14), metastatic disease at diagnosis (HR 3.88; 95% CI 1.29-11.64), and age (per-year HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Limb salvage is oncologically-feasible for calcaneal malignancies.

The role of emergency medical service providers in the decision-making process of prehospital trauma triage.

PURPOSE: Severely injured patients should be treated at higher-level trauma centres, to improve chances of survival and avert life-long disabilities. Emergency medical service (EMS) providers must try to determine injury severity on-scene, using a prehospital trauma triage protocol, and decide the most appropriate type of trauma centre. The objective of this study is to investigate the role of EMS provider judgment in the prehospital triage process of trauma patients, by analysing the compliance rate to the protocol and administering a questionnaire among EMS providers. METHODS: All trauma patients transported to a trauma centre in two different regions of the Netherlands were analysed. Compliance rate was based on the number of patients meeting the triage criteria and transported to the corresponding level trauma centre. The questionnaire was administered among EMS providers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: For adult patients, the compliance rate to the level I criteria of the triage protocol was 72% in Central Netherlands and 42% in Brabant. For paediatric patients, this was 63% and 38% in Central Netherlands and Brabant, respectively. The judgment on injury severity was mostly based on the injury-type criteria. Additionally, the distance to a level I trauma centre influenced the decision for destination facility in the Brabant region. CONCLUSION: The compliance rate varied between regions. Improvement of prehospital trauma triage depends on the accuracy of the protocol and compliance rate. A new protocol, including EMS provider judgment, might be the key to improvement in the prehospital trauma triage quality.

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.

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.

Accuracy of prehospital triage protocols in selecting severely injured patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital trauma triage ensures proper transport of patients at risk of severe injury to hospitals with an appropriate corresponding level of trauma care. Incorrect triage results in undertriage and overtriage. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma recommends an undertriage rate below 5% and an overtriage rate below 50% for prehospital trauma triage protocols. To find the most accurate prehospital trauma triage protocol, a clear overview of all currently available protocols and corresponding outcomes is necessary. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on all available prehospital trauma triage protocols and determine accuracy of protocol-based triage quality in terms of sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: A search of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify all studies describing prehospital trauma triage protocols before November 2016. The search terms included "trauma," "trauma center," or "trauma system" combined with "triage," "undertriage," or "overtriage." All studies describing protocol-based triage quality were reviewed. To assess the quality of these type of studies, a new critical appraisal tool was developed. RESULTS: In this review, 21 articles were included with numbers of patients ranging from 130 to over 1 million. Significant predictors for severe injury were: vital signs, suspicion of certain anatomic injuries, mechanism of injury, and age. Sensitivity ranged from 10% to 100%; specificity from 9% to 100%. Nearly all protocols had a low sensitivity, thereby failing to identify severely injured patients. Additionally, the critical appraisal showed poor quality of the majority of included studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows that nearly all protocols are incapable of identifying severely injured patients. Future studies of high methodological quality should be performed to improve prehospital trauma triage protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.