Search

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.

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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.

Purpose: To evaluate the pre-hospital administration of tranexamic acid in ambulance-treated trauma patients with a severe hemorrhage after the implementation of tranexamic acid administration in the Dutch pre-hospital protocol. Methods: All patients with a severe hemorrhage who were treated and conveyed by EMS professionals between January 2015, and December 2017, to any trauma-receiving emergency department in the eight participating trauma regions in the Netherlands, were included. A severe hemorrhage was defined as extracranial injury with > 20% body volume blood loss, an extremity amputation above the wrist or ankle, or a grade ≥ 4 visceral organ injury. The main outcome was to determine the proportion of patients with a severe hemorrhage who received pre-hospital treatment with tranexamic acid. A Generalized Linear Model (GLM) was performed to investigate the relationship between pre-hospital tranexamic acid treatment and 24 h mortality. Results: A total of 477 patients had a severe hemorrhage, of whom 124 patients (26.0%) received tranexamic acid before arriving at the hospital. More than half (58.4%) of the untreated patients were suspected of a severe hemorrhage by EMS professionals. Patients treated with tranexamic acid had a significantly lower risk on 24 h mortality than untreated patients (OR 0.43 [95% CI 0.19–0.97]). Conclusion: Approximately a quarter of the patients with a severe hemorrhage received tranexamic acid before arriving at the hospital, while a severe hemorrhage was suspected in more than half of the non-treated patients. Severely hemorrhaging patients treated with tranexamic acid before arrival at the hospital had a lower risk to die within 24 h after injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Substantial difference in mortality following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) across international trauma centers has previously been demonstrated. This could be partly attributed to variability in the severity coding of the injuries. This study evaluated the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores of patients with severe TBI across three international level I trauma centers. Methods: A total 150 patients (50 per center) were randomly selected from each respective trauma registry: University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU), the Netherlands; John Hunter Hospital (JHH), Australia; and Harborview Medical Center (HMC), the United States. Reliability between coders and trauma centers was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The reliability between the coders and the original trauma registry scores was 0.50, 0.50, and 0.41 in, respectively, UMCU, JHH, and HMC. The AIS coders at UMCU scored the most AIS codes of ≥ 4. Reliability within the trauma centers was substantial in UMCU (ICC = 0.62) and HMC (ICC = 0.78) and almost perfect in JHH (ICC = 0.85). Reliability between trauma centers was 0.70 between UMCU and JHH, 0.70 between JHH and HMC, and 0.59 between UMCU and HMC. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated a substantial and almost perfect reliability of the AIS coders within the same trauma center, but variability across trauma centers. This indicates a need to improve inter-rater reliability in AIS coders and quality assessments of trauma registry data, specifically for patients with head injuries. Future research should study the effect of differences in AIS scoring on outcome predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the influence of intoxication on the pre-hospital recognition of severely head-injured patients by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) professionals and to investigate the relationship between suspected alcohol intoxication and severe head injury. This multi-center, retrospective, cohort study included trauma patients, aged ≥ 16 years, transported by an ambulance of the Regional Ambulance Facility Utrecht to any emergency department in the participating trauma regions. Between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017, 19,206 patients were included, of whom 1167 (6.0%) were suspected to have a severe head injury in the field, and 623 (3.2%) were diagnosed with such an injury at the hospital. These injuries were less frequently recognized in patients with a GCS ≥ 13 than in patients with a GCS < 13 (25.0% vs. 76.2%). Patients suspected to be intoxicated had a higher chance to suffer from severe head injury (OR 1.42, 95%-CI 1.22–1.65) and were recognized slightly more often (45.3% vs. 40.2%). Severe head injuries are difficult to recognize in the field, especially in patients without a decreased GCS. Suspicion of alcohol intoxication did not seem to influence pre-hospital injury recognition, as it possibly makes a severe head injury harder to recognize and simultaneously raises caution for a severe injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]