Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria.
Journal
The journal of trauma and acute care surgery
ISSN: 2163-0763
Titre abrégé: J Trauma Acute Care Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101570622
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
entrez:
21
5
2021
pubmed:
22
5
2021
medline:
24
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association with trauma center need (TCN). Scene patients 16 years and older in the NTDB during 2017 were included. National Field Triage Guidelines anatomic criteria were classified based on EMS documentation and ICD-10 diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was TCN, a composite of Injury Severity Score greater than 15, intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or emergency department death. Prevalence of anatomic criteria and their association with TCN was compared in EMS-identified versus ICD-10-coded criteria. Diagnostic performance to predict TCN was compared. There were 669,795 patients analyzed. The ICD-10 coding demonstrated a greater prevalence of injury detection. Emergency medical service-identified versus ICD-10-coded anatomic criteria were less sensitive (31% vs. 59%), but more specific (91% vs. 73%) and accurate (71% vs. 68%) for predicting TCN. Emergency medical service providers demonstrated a marked reduction in false positives (9% vs. 27%) but higher rates of false negatives (69% vs. 42%) in predicting TCN from anatomic criteria. Odds of TCN were significantly greater for EMS-identified criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.46-4.58) versus ICD-10 coding (adjusted odds ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.71-3.79). Of EMS-identified injuries, penetrating injury, flail chest, and two or more proximal long bone fractures were associated with greater TCN than ICD-10 coding. When evaluating the anatomic criteria, EMS demonstrate greater specificity and accuracy in predicting TCN, as well as reduced false positives compared with ICD-10 coding. Emergency medical services identification is less sensitive for anatomic criteria; however, EMS identify the most clinically significant injuries. Further study is warranted to identify the most clinically important anatomic triage criteria to improve our triage protocols. Care management, Level IV; Prognostic, Level III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association with trauma center need (TCN).
METHODS
Scene patients 16 years and older in the NTDB during 2017 were included. National Field Triage Guidelines anatomic criteria were classified based on EMS documentation and ICD-10 diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was TCN, a composite of Injury Severity Score greater than 15, intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or emergency department death. Prevalence of anatomic criteria and their association with TCN was compared in EMS-identified versus ICD-10-coded criteria. Diagnostic performance to predict TCN was compared.
RESULTS
There were 669,795 patients analyzed. The ICD-10 coding demonstrated a greater prevalence of injury detection. Emergency medical service-identified versus ICD-10-coded anatomic criteria were less sensitive (31% vs. 59%), but more specific (91% vs. 73%) and accurate (71% vs. 68%) for predicting TCN. Emergency medical service providers demonstrated a marked reduction in false positives (9% vs. 27%) but higher rates of false negatives (69% vs. 42%) in predicting TCN from anatomic criteria. Odds of TCN were significantly greater for EMS-identified criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.46-4.58) versus ICD-10 coding (adjusted odds ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.71-3.79). Of EMS-identified injuries, penetrating injury, flail chest, and two or more proximal long bone fractures were associated with greater TCN than ICD-10 coding.
CONCLUSION
When evaluating the anatomic criteria, EMS demonstrate greater specificity and accuracy in predicting TCN, as well as reduced false positives compared with ICD-10 coding. Emergency medical services identification is less sensitive for anatomic criteria; however, EMS identify the most clinically significant injuries. Further study is warranted to identify the most clinically important anatomic triage criteria to improve our triage protocols.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Care management, Level IV; Prognostic, Level III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34016920
doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003168
pii: 01586154-202106000-00007
pmc: PMC8243859
mid: NIHMS1681195
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
967-972Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM008516
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Sasser SM, Hunt RC, Faul M, et al. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011. MMWR Recomm Rep . 2012;61:1–20.
Deeb AP, Phelos HM, Peitzman AB, Billiar TR, Sperry JL, Brown JB. Disparities in rural versus urban field triage: Risk and mitigating factors for undertriage. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2020;89:246–253.
Horst MA, Jammula S, Gross BW, Cook AD, Bradburn EH, Altenburg J, Von Nieda D, Morgan M, Rogers FB. Undertriage in trauma: does an organized trauma network capture the major trauma victim? A statewide analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2018;84:497–504.
Mullins RJ, Veum-Stone J, Helfand M, Zimmer-Gembeck M, Hedges JR, Southard PA, Trunkey DD. Outcome of hospitalized injured patients after institution of a trauma system in an urban area. JAMA . 1994;271:1919–1924.
Newgard CD, Staudenmayer K, Hsia RY, Mann NC, Bulger EM, Holmes JF, Fleischman R, Gorman K, Haukoos J, McConnell KJ. The cost of overtriage: more than one-third of low-risk injured patients were taken to major trauma centers. Health Aff (Millwood) . 2013;32:1591–1599.
Xiang H, Wheeler KK, Groner JI, Shi J, Haley KJ. Undertriage of major trauma patients in the US emergency departments. Am J Emerg Med . 2014;32:997–1004.
American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient . Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2014.
Jones CM, Cushman JT, Lerner EB, Fisher SG, Seplaki CL, Veazie PJ, Wasserman EB, Dozier A, Shah MN. Prehospital trauma triage decision-making: a model of what happens between the 9-1-1 call and the hospital. Prehosp Emerg Care . 2016;20:6–14.
Nirula R, Maier R, Moore E, Sperry J, Gentilello L. Scoop and run to the trauma center or stay and play at the local hospital: hospital transfer’s effect on mortality. J Trauma . 2010;69:595–599; discussion 599-601.
Fishman PE, Shofer FS, Robey JL, Zogby KE, Reilly PM, Branas CC, Pines JM, Hollander JE. The impact of trauma activations on the care of emergency department patients with potential acute coronary syndromes. Ann Emerg Med . 2006;48:347–353.
MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Nathens AB, Frey KP, Egleston BL, Salkever DS, Scharfstein DO. A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med . 2006;354:366–378.
Esposito TJ, Offner PJ, Jurkovich GJ, Griffith J, Maier RV. Do prehospital trauma center triage criteria identify major trauma victims? Arch Surg . 1995;130:171–176.
Brown JB, Gestring ML, Forsythe RM, Stassen NA, Billiar TR, Peitzman AB, Sperry JL. Systolic blood pressure criteria in the National Trauma Triage Protocol for geriatric trauma: 110 is the new 90. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2015;78:352–359.
Newgard CD, Fu R, Zive D, et al. Prospective validation of the National Field Triage Guidelines for identifying seriously injured persons. J Am Coll Surg . 2016;222:146–158.e142.
Lerner EB, Roberts J, Guse CE, Shah MN, Swor R, Cushman JT, Blatt A, Jurkovich GJ, Brasel K. Does EMS perceived anatomic injury predict trauma center need? Prehosp Emerg Care . 2013;17:312–316.
Lerner EB, Willenbring BD, Pirrallo RG, et al. A consensus-based criterion standard for trauma center need. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2014;76:1157–1163.
Newgard CD, Hedges JR, Diggs B, Mullins RJ. Establishing the need for trauma center care: anatomic injury or resource use? Prehosp Emerg Care . 2008;12:451–458.
Brown JB, Lerner EB, Sperry JL, Billiar TR, Peitzman AB, Guyette FX. Prehospital lactate improves accuracy of prehospital criteria for designating trauma activation level. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2016;81:445–452.
Guyette FX, Meier EN, Newgard C, et al. A comparison of prehospital lactate and systolic blood pressure for predicting the need for resuscitative care in trauma transported by ground. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2015;78:600–606.
He K, Zhang P, Wang SC. Crash telemetry-based injury severity prediction is equivalent to or out-performs field protocols in triage of planar vehicle collisions. Prehosp Disaster Med . 2019;34:356–362.
Laudermilch DJ, Schiff MA, Nathens AB, Rosengart MR. Lack of emergency medical services documentation is associated with poor patient outcomes: a validation of audit filters for prehospital trauma care. J Am Coll Surg . 2010;210:220–227.
Brown JB, Stassen NA, Bankey PE, Sangosanya AT, Cheng JD, Gestring ML. Mechanism of injury and special consideration criteria still matter: an evaluation of the National Trauma Triage Protocol. J Trauma . 2011;70:38–44; discussion 44-35.