Association of System-Level Factors With Secondary Overtriage in Trauma Patients.

Importance: Studies show that secondary overtriage (SO) contributes significantly to the economic burden of injured patients; thus, the association of SO with use of the trauma system has been examined. However, the association of the underlying trauma system design with such overtriage has yet to be evaluated. Objectives: To evaluate whether the distribution of trauma centers in a statewide trauma system is associated with SO and to identify clinical and demographic factors that may lead to SO. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was performed using 2008-2012 data from the Ohio Trauma and Emergency Medical Services registries. All patients taken to level III or nontrauma centers from the scene of the injury with an Injury Severity Score less than 15 and discharged alive were included. Among these patients, those with SO were identified as those who were subsequently transferred to a level I or II trauma center, had no surgical intervention, and were discharged alive within 48 hours of admission. The SO group was analyzed descriptively. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify system-level factors associated with SO. Statistical analysis was performed from August 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the occurrence of SO. Results: Of 34 494 trauma patients able to be matched in the 2 registries, 7881 (22.9%) met the inclusion criteria, of whom 965 (12.2%) had SO. The median age in the SO group was 40 years (interquartile range, 26-55 years), with 299 women and 666 men. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, injury type, and insurance status, the study found that system-level factors (number of level I or II trauma centers in the region [>1]) were significantly associated with SO (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.64-2.38; P < .001; area under the curve, 0.89). The reasons for choice of destination by emergency medical services (specifically, choosing the closest facility: adjusted odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.37-1.98; P < .001) and use of a field trauma triage protocol (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.70-2.87; P < .001), significantly increased the likelihood of SO. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that the distribution of major trauma centers in the region is significantly associated with SO. Subsequent investigation to identify the optimal number and distribution of trauma centers may therefore be critical. Specific outreach and collaboration of level III trauma centers and nontrauma centers with level I and II trauma centers, along with the use of telemedicine, may provide further guidance to level III trauma centers and nontrauma centers on when to transfer injured patients.

Impact of triage guidelines on prehospital triage: comparison of guidelines with a statistical model.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons developed the National Field Triage Decision Scheme (NFTDS) that has been adapted by many trauma centers in the nation, but quantitative evidence of its efficacy is unclear. We compare the NFTDS and state of Ohio guidelines to the "observed" rates and with rates derived using a statistical model. METHODS: We used 4757 trauma records from 2008-2012 available from the state and calculated undertriage (UT) and overtriage (OT) rates. We then simulated the NFTDS and the state guidelines for those years and estimated the corresponding UT and OT rates. We finally compared these rates with those derived from a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: For the state data, both NFTDS and state guidelines produced lower UT rate (∼9%) compared with the observed rate (∼17%), whereas the OT rates were higher (>85%) than the observed rates (∼54%). The statistical model identified novel factors that were not directly available in the NFTDS; change in responsiveness (odds ratio [OR] = 1.924) and complaint in body (OR = 3.140), back (OR = 1.890), chest (OR = 3.191), head (OR = 3.878), and abdomen (OR = 2.966). Although the statistical model performed similar to observed rates, it performed considerably better than NFTDS (UT = 1.93% versus 9.03%; OT = 66.42% versus 87.52%) and state guidelines (UT = 2.18% versus 8.72%; OT = 64.09% versus 86.52%). CONCLUSIONS: The current NFTDS and state's triage guidelines do not appear to achieve the ACS recommendation of <5% UT and <35% OT rates in the state of Ohio. Inclusion of region-specific factors may help enhance the current NFTDS guidelines and aid in the first impression or judgment of the Emergency Medical Services personnel to improve trauma care and reduce cost.