Dataset Information

Accuracy of pre-hospital triage tools for major trauma: a systematic review with meta-analysis and net clinical benefit.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and compare the accuracy of pre-hospital triage tools for major trauma in the context of the development of the Italian National Institute of Health guidelines on major trauma integrated management.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to November 2019 for studies investigating pre-hospital triage tools. The ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve and net clinical benefit for all selected triage tools were performed. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Certainty of the evidence was judged with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

We found 15 observational studies of 13 triage tools for adults and 11 for children. In adults, according to the ROC curve and the net clinical benefit, the most reliable tool was the Northern French Alps Trauma System (TRENAU), adopting injury severity score (ISS) > 15 as reference (sensitivity (Sn), 0.92; specificity (Sp), 0.41; 1 study; sample size, 2572; high certainty of the evidence). When mortality as reference was considered, the pre-hospital triage tool with the best net clinical benefit trajectory was the New Trauma Score (NTS) < 18 (Sn, 0.82; Sp, 0.86; 1 study; sample size, 1001; moderate certainty of the evidence). In children, high variability among all triage tools for sensitivity and specificity was found.

Conclusion

Sensitivity and specificity varied across all available pre-hospital trauma triage tools. TRENAU and NTS are the best accurate triage tools for adults, whereas in the pediatric area a large variability prevents any firm conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Gianola S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8193906 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPre-hospital identification of major trauma in elderly patients is key for delivery of optimal care, however triage of this group is challenging. Elderly-specific triage criteria may be valuable. This systematic review aimed to summarise the published pre-hospital elderly-specific trauma triage tools and evaluate their sensitivity and specificity and associated clinical outcomes.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched using predetermined criteria (PROSPERO: CRD42019140879). Two authors independently assessed search results, performed data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.Results801 articles were screened and 11 studies met eligibility criteria, including 1,332,300 patients from exclusively USA populations. There were eight unique elderly-specific triage criteria reported. Most studies retrospectively applied criteria to trauma databases, with few reporting real-world application. The Ohio Geriatric Triage Criteria was reported in three studies. Age cut-off ranged from 55 to 70 years with ≥ 65 most frequently reported. All reported existing adult criteria with modified physiological parameters using higher thresholds for systolic blood pressure and Glasgow coma scale, although the values used varied. Three criteria added co-morbidity or anti-coagulant/anti-platelet use considerations. Modifications to anatomical or mechanism of injury factors were used by only one triage criteria. Criteria sensitivity ranged from 44 to 93%, with a median of 86.3%, whilst specificity was generally poor (median 54%). Scant real-world data showed an increase in patients meeting triage criteria, but minimal changes to patient transport destination and mortality. All studies were at risk of bias and assessed of "very low" or "low" quality.ConclusionsThere are several published elderly-specific pre-hospital trauma triage tools in clinical practice, all developed and employed in the USA. Consensus exists for higher thresholds for physiological parameters, however there was variability in age-cut offs, triage criteria content, and tool sensitivity and specificity. Although sensitivity was improved over corresponding 'adult' criteria, specificity remained poor. There is a paucity of published real-world data examining the effect on patient care and clinical outcomes of elderly-specific triage criteria. There is uncertainty over the optimal elderly triage tool and further study is required to better inform practice and improve patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundNatural disasters, conflict, and terrorism are major global causes of death and disability. Central to the healthcare response is triage, vital to ensure the right care is provided to the right patient at the right time. The ideal triage tool has high sensitivity for the highest priority (P1) patients with acceptably low over-triage. This study compared the performance of major incident triage tools in predicting P1 casualty status in adults in the prospective UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry.MethodsTARN patients aged 16+ years (January 2008-December 2017) were included. Ten existing triage tools were applied using patients' first recorded pre-hospital physiology. Patients were subsequently assigned triage categories (P1, P2, P3, Expectant or Dead) based on pre-defined, intervention-based criteria. Tool performance was assessed by comparing tool-predicted and intervention-based priority status.Findings195,709 patients were included; mortality was 7·0% (n=13,601); median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 9 (IQR 9-17); 97·1% sustained blunt injuries. 22,144 (11·3%) patients fulfilled intervention-based criteria for P1 status, exhibiting higher mortality (12·8% vs. 5·0%, p<0.001), increased intensive care requirement (52·4% vs 5·0%, p<0.001), and more severe injuries (median ISS 21 vs 9, p<0.001) compared with P2 patients.In 16-64 year olds, the highest performing tool was the Battlefield Casualty Drills (BCD) Triage Sieve (Prediction of P1 status: 70·4% sensitivity, over-triage 70·9%, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) 0·068 [95%CI 0·676-0·684]). The UK National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU) Triage Sieve had sensitivity of 44·9%; over-triage 56·4%; AUC 0·666 (95%CI 0·662-0·670). All tools performed poorly amongst the elderly (65+ years).InterpretationThe BCD Triage Sieve performed best in this nationally representative population; we recommend it supersede the NARU Triage Sieve as the UK primary major incident triage tool. Validated triage category definitions are recommended for appraising future major incidents.FundingThis study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre. GVG also acknowledges support from the MRC Heath Data Research UK (HDRUK/CFC/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or the Ministry of Defence.

Project description:Objective: Older adults make up a rapidly increasing proportion of motor vehicle occupants and previous studies have demonstrated that this population is more susceptible to traumatic injuries. The CDC recommends that patients anticipated to have severe injuries (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) be transported to a trauma center. The recommended target rate for undertriage is ≤ 5% and for overtriage is ≤ 50%. Several regression-based algorithms for injury prediction have been developed in order to predict severe injury in occupants involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVC). The objective of this study to was to determine if the accuracy of regression-based injury severity prediction algorithms decreases for older adults.Methods: Data were obtained from the National Automotive Sampling System - Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) from the years 2000-2015. Adult occupants involved in non-rollover MVCs were included. Regression-based injury risk models to predict severe injury (ISS ≥ 16) were developed using random split-samples with the following variables: age, delta-V, direction of impact, belt status, and number of impacts. Separate models were trained using data from the following age groups: (1) all adults, (2) 15-54 years, (3) ≥45 years, (4) ≥55 years, and (5) ≥65 years. The models were compared using the mean receiver operating characteristic area under curve (ROC-AUC) after 1,000 iterations of training and testing. The predicted rates of overtriage were then determined for each group in order to achieve an undertriage rate of 5%.Results: There were 24,577 occupants (6,863,306 weighted) included in this analysis. The injury prediction model trained using data from all adults did not perform as well when tested on older adults (ROC-AUC: 15-54 years: 0.874 [95% CI: [0.851-0.895]; 45+ years: 0.837 [95% CI: 0.802-869]; 55+ years: 0.821 [95% CI: 0.775-0.864]; and 65+ years: 0.813 [95% CI: 0.754-0.866]). The accuracy of this model decreased in each decade of life. The performance did not change significantly when age-specific data were used to train the prediction models (ROC-AUC: 18-54 years: 0.874 [95% CI: 0.851-0.896]; 45+ years: 0.836 [95% CI: 0.798-0.871]; 55+ years: 0.822 [95% CI: 0.779-0.864]; and 65+ years: 0.808 [95% CI: 0.748-0.868]). In order to achieve an undertriage rate of 5%, the predicted overtriage rate by these models were 50% for occupants 15-54 years, 61% for occupants ≥ 55 years, 70% for occupants ≥ 55 years, and 71% for occupants ≥ 65 years.Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that it is more difficult to accurately predict severe injury in older adults involved in MVCs, which has the potential to result in significant overtriage. This decreased accuracy is likely due to variations in fragility in older adults. These findings indicate that special care should be taken when using regression-based prediction models to determine the appropriate hospital destination for older occupants.

Project description:The emergency medical services (EMS) cover initiatives and services established to provide essential medical assistance in situations of acute illness. Triage-methods for systematic prioritizing of patients according to how urgent patients need care, including triage of requests of acute medical treatment, are adopted in hospitals as well as in the pre-hospital settings. This systematic review searched to identify available research on the effects of validated triage systems for use in the pre-hospital EMS on health outcomes, patient safety, patient satisfaction, user-friendliness, resource use, goal achievement, and the quality on the information exchange between the different settings of the EMS (for example the quality of documentation). The specific research questions were: 1) are pre-hospital triage systems effective, 2) is one triage system more effective than others, and 3) is it effective to use the same triage system in two or more settings of the EMS-chain? We conducted a systematic literature search in nine databases up to June 2012. We searched for systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITSs). Two persons independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and the same persons read all possibly relevant full text articles and rated the methodological quality where relevant. The literature search identified 11011 unique references. A total of 120 publications were read in full text. None of the identified articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria, thus our question on the effects of pre-hospital triage systems, if one system is better than other systems, and the question on effects of using the same triage system in two or more settings of the EMS, remain unanswered. We conclude that there is an evidence gap regarding the effects of pre-hospital triage systems and the effects of using the same triage system in two or more settings of the EMS. The finding does not mean that pre-hospital triage systems are ineffective, but that we lack knowledge about potential effects. When introducing a new assessment tool in the EMS, it is timely to conduct well-planned studies aimed to assess the effect.

Project description:National benchmarks for trauma triage sensitivity (?95%) and specificity (?50%) have not been rigorously evaluated across broad populations of injured patients. We evaluated the impact of different field triage schemes for identifying seriously injured patients across a range of sensitivity values. Impact metrics included specificity and number of undertriaged and overtriaged patients compared with current triage practices.This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children and adults transported by 48 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies to 105 hospitals in 6 regions of the Western United States from 2006 through 2008. Hospital outcomes were probabilistically linked to EMS records through trauma registries, state discharge databases, and state emergency department databases. The primary outcome was an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or greater. We evaluated 40 field predictor variables, including 31 current field triage criteria, using classification and regression tree analysis and cross-validation to generate estimates for sensitivity and specificity.A total of 89,261 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS providers during the 3-year period, of whom 5,711 (6.4%) had ISS of 16 or greater. As the 95% sensitivity target for triage was approached (from the current value of 87.5%), decision tree complexity increased, specificity decreased (from 62.8% to 18.7%), and the number of triage-positive patients without serious injury doubled (67,927 vs. 31,104). Analyses restricted to children and older adults were similar. The most consistent modification to the current triage algorithm to increase sensitivity without a major decrease in specificity was altering the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score cutoff point from 13 or less to 14 or less (sensitivity increase to 90.4%).Reaching the field triage sensitivity benchmark of 95% would require a large decrease in specificity (increase in overtriage). A 90% sensitivity target seems more realistic and may be obtainable by modest changes to the current triage algorithm.

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.