Dataset Information

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: van Rein EAJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6537785 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) score was developed to identify injured patients who may benefit from scene helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport. External validation using a different data set is essential to ensure reliable performance. The study objective was to validate the effectiveness of the AMPT score to identify patients with a survival benefit from HEMS using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry.MethodsPatients 16 years or older undergoing scene HEMS or ground EMS (GEMS) transport in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry 2000-2013 were included. Patients with 2 or higher AMPT score points were triaged to HEMS, while those with less than 2 points were triaged to GEMS. Multilevel Poisson regression determined the association of survival with actual transport mode across AMPT score triage assignments, adjusting for demographics, mechanism, vital signs, interventions, and injury severity. Successful validation was defined as no survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, with a survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients treated by advanced life support providers and patients with transport times longer than 10 minutes.ResultsThere were 222,827 patients included. For patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, actual transport mode was not associated with survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.999-1.009; p = 0.08). For patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score, actual HEMS transport was associated with a 6.7% increase in the relative probability of survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.067; 95% confidence interval, 1.040-1.083, p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.ConclusionsThis study is the first to externally validate the AMPT score, demonstrating the ability of this tool to reliably identify trauma patients most likely to benefit from HEMS transport. The AMPT score should be considered when protocols for HEMS scene transport are developed and reviewed.Level of evidenceEpidemiologic/prognostic study, level III; therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Project description:ObjectiveOur aim was to develop a risk stratification model to predict the presence of a potentially more sinister injury in patients exposed to a whiplash trauma.MethodsThe study base comprised of 3,115 residents who first sought healthcare contact within one week after being exposed to a whiplash trauma between 1999-2008, from within a defined geographical area, Skaraborg County in south-western Sweden. Information about gender, age, time elapsed prior to seeking care, type of health care contact, and hospitalisation was retrieved. Seventeen potential risk factors were identified and evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf 3,115 patients, 215 (6.9%) required hospital admission so theoretically 93% could have been initially assessed by primary health care. However, only 46% had their first contact in primary health care. All patients had symptoms resulting in a diagnosis of whiplash injury. Four risk factors were found to be associated with hospital admission: commotio cerebri (OR 31, 19-51), fracture / luxation (OR 11, 5.1-22), serious injury (OR 41, 8.0-210), and the patient sought care during the same day as the trauma (OR 5.9, 3.7-9.5). These four risk factors explained 27% of the variation for hospital admission and the area under curve (AUC) was 0.77 (0.74-0.80). Ninety-six percent of patients (2,985) had only a whiplash injury with no other injury. These could be split into those attending health care the same day as the trauma, 1,737 (56%) with a 7.1% risk for hospital admission, and those attending health care later, 1,248 (40%) with a 1.3% risk for hospital admission.ConclusionPatients with no signs of commotio cerebri, no fracture/luxation injury, no serious injury, comprising 96% of all patients exposed to a whiplash trauma can initially be referred to primary health care for initial assessment. However, those contacting the health care the same day as the trauma should be referred to a hospital for evaluation if they can't get an appointment with a general practitioner the same day.

Project description:Background and Purpose- We used a decision analysis approach to analyze triage strategies for patients with acute stroke symptoms while accounting for prehospital large vessel occlusion (LVO) screening methods and key time metrics. Methods- Our decision analysis compared anticipated functional outcomes for patients within the IV-tPA (intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator) treatment window in the mothership and drip-and-ship frameworks. Key branches of the model included IV-tPA eligibility, presence of an LVO, and endovascular therapy eligibility. Our decision analysis evaluated 2 prehospital LVO screening approaches: (1) no formal screening and (2) the use of clinical LVO screening scales. An excellent outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale scores 0-1. Probabilities and workflow times were guideline-based or imputed from published studies. In sensitivity analyses, we individually and jointly varied transport time to the nearest primary stroke center, additional time required to transport directly to a comprehensive stroke center, and LVO screening scale predictive probabilities. We evaluated 2 separate scenarios: one in which ideal time metrics were achieved and one under current real-world metrics. Results- In the ideal metrics scenario, the drip-and-ship strategy was almost always favored in the absence of formal LVO screening. For patients screened positive for an LVO, mothership was favored if the additional transport time to the comprehensive stroke center was <3 to 23 minutes. Under real-world conditions, in which primary stroke center workflow is slower than ideal, the mothership strategy was favored in more scenarios, regardless of formal LVO screening. For example, mothership was favored with an additional transport time to the comprehensive stroke center of <32 to 99 minutes for patients screened positive for an LVO and <28 to 39 minutes in the absence of screening. Conclusions- Joint consideration of LVO probability, screening, workflow times, and transport times may improve prehospital stroke triage. Drip-and-ship was more favorable when more ideal primary stroke center workflow times were modeled.

Project description:BackgroundDemand for both the ambulance service and the emergency department (ED) is rising every year and when this demand is excessive in both systems, ambulance crews queue at the ED waiting to hand patients over. Some transported ambulance patients are 'low-acuity' and do not require the treatment of the ED. However, paramedics can find it challenging to identify these patients accurately. Decision support tools have been developed using expert opinion to help identify these low acuity patients but have failed to show a benefit beyond regular decision-making. Predictive algorithms may be able to build accurate models, which can be used in the field to support the decision not to take a low-acuity patient to an ED.Methods and analysisAll patients in Yorkshire who were transported to the ED by ambulance between July 2019 and February 2020 will be included. Ambulance electronic patient care record (ePCR) clinical data will be used as candidate predictors for the model. These will then be linked to the corresponding ED record, which holds the outcome of a 'non-urgent attendance'. The estimated sample size is 52,958, with 4767 events and an EPP of 7.48. An XGBoost algorithm will be used for model development. Initially, a model will be derived using all the data and the apparent performance will be assessed. Then internal-external validation will use non-random nested cross-validation (CV) with test sets held out for each ED (spatial validation). After all models are created, a random-effects meta-analysis will be undertaken. This will pool performance measures such as goodness of fit, discrimination and calibration. It will also generate a prediction interval and measure heterogeneity between clusters. The performance of the full model will be updated with the pooled results.DiscussionCreating a risk prediction model in this area will lead to further development of a clinical decision support tool that ensures every ambulance patient can get to the right place of care, first time. If this study is successful, it could help paramedics evaluate the benefit of transporting a patient to the ED before they leave the scene. It could also reduce congestion in the urgent and emergency care system.Trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered with the ISRCTN: 12121281.

Dataset Information

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets