Dataset Information

The Safety INdEx of Prehospital On Scene Triage (SINEPOST) study: the development and validation of a risk prediction model to support ambulance clinical transport decisions on-scene—a protocol

ABSTRACT:

Background

Demand 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 analysis

All 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.

Discussion

Creating 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 Registration

This study was retrospectively registered with the ISRCTN: 12121281

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-021-00108-4.

SUBMITTER: Miles J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8573562 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:One of the main problems currently facing the delivery of safe and effective emergency care is excess demand, which causes congestion at different time points in a patient's journey. The modern case-mix of prehospital patients is broad and complex, diverging from the traditional 'time critical accident and emergency' patients. It now includes many low-acuity patients and those with social care and mental health needs. In the ambulance service, transport decisions are the hardest to make and paramedics decide to take more patients to the ED than would have a clinical benefit. As such, this study asked the following research questions: In adult patients attending the ED by ambulance, can prehospital information predict an avoidable attendance? What is the simulated transportability of the model derived from the primary outcome? A linked dataset of 101,522 ambulance service and ED ambulance incidents linked to their respective ED care record from the whole of Yorkshire between 1st July 2019 and 29th February 2020 was used as the sample for this study. A machine learning method known as XGBoost was applied to the data in a novel way called Internal-External Cross Validation (IECV) to build the model. The results showed great discrimination with a C-statistic of 0.81 (95%CI 0.79-0.83) and excellent calibration with an O:E ratio was 0.995 (95% CI 0.97-1.03), with the most important variables being a patient's mobility, their physiological observations and clinical impression with psychiatric problems, allergic reactions, cardiac chest pain, head injury, non-traumatic back pain, and minor cuts and bruising being the most important. This study has successfully developed a decision-support model that can be transformed into a tool that could help paramedics make better transport decisions on scene, known as the SINEPOST model. It is accurate, and spatially validated across multiple geographies including rural, urban, and coastal. It is a fair algorithm that does not discriminate new patients based on their age, gender, ethnicity, or decile of deprivation. It can be embedded into an electronic Patient Care Record system and automatically calculate the probability that a patient will have an avoidable attendance at the ED, if they were transported. This manuscript complies with the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement (Moons KGM, 2015).

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:INTRODUCTION:Increased out-of-hospital time is associated with worse outcomes in trauma. Sparse literature exists comparing prehospital scene and transport time management intervals between adult and pediatric trauma patients. National Emergency Medical Services guidelines recommend that trauma scene time be less than 10 minutes. The objective of this study was to examine prehospital time intervals in adult and pediatric trauma patients. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of blunt and penetrating trauma patients in a five-county region in North Carolina using prehospital records. We included patients who were transported emergency traffic directly from the scene by ground ambulance to a Level I or Level II trauma center between 2013-2018. We defined pediatric patients as those less than 16 years old. Urbanicity was controlled for using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Ambulance Fee Schedule. We performed descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects regression modeling. RESULTS:A total of 2179 records met the study criteria, of which 2077 were used in the analysis. Mean scene time was 14.2 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9-14.5) and 35.3% (n = 733) of encounters had a scene time of 10 minutes or less. Mean transport time was 17.5 minutes (95% CI, 17.0-17.9). Linear mixed-effects regression revealed that scene times were shorter for pediatric patients (p<0.0001), males (p=0.0016), penetrating injury (p<0.0001), and patients with blunt trauma in rural settings (p=0.005), and that transport times were shorter for males (p = 0.02), non-White patients (p<0.0001), and patients in urban areas (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION:This study population largely missed the 10-minute scene time goal. Demographic and patient factors were associated with scene and transport times. Shorter scene times occurred with pediatric patients, males, and among those with penetrating trauma. Additionally, suffering blunt trauma while in a rural environment was associated with shorter scene time. Males, non-White patients, and patients in urban environments tended to have shorter transport times. Future studies with outcomes data are needed to identify factors that prolong out-of-hospital time and to assess the impact of out-of-hospital time on patient outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesThe primary objective was to estimate the incidence of patients in the Central Denmark Region triaged to bypass the local emergency department without being part of a predefined fast-track protocol. The secondary objective was to describe these triage decisions in more detail with regard to the most common diagnoses, incidence of direct referral sorted by the prehospital critical care team (PHCCT) and the destination hospital.DesignRetrospective descriptive study.Setting and participantsThe emergency medical service in the Central Denmark Region primarily consists of emergency medical technician (EMT)-staffed ambulances and anaesthesiologist-EMT-staffed PHCCTs. Patients treated by the nine ground-based PHCCTs in the region constituted the study population. The inclusion criteria were all patients treated by the PHCCTs during 2013 and 2014. The exclusion criteria were interhospital transfers, and patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, stroke or were in active labour.EndpointsIncidence of prehospital critical care anaesthesiologist-initiated direct referral, prehospital tentative diagnoses and transport destination.ResultsDuring the study period, the PHCCTs treated 39 396 patients and diverted 989 (2.5%) patients not covered by a predefined fast-track protocol to a specialised hospital department. 'Resuscitated from cardiac arrest' (n=143), 'treatment and observations following road traffic accident' (n=105) and 'observation and treatment for an unspecified disease/condition' (n=78) were the most common prehospital tentative diagnoses, accounting for 33.0% of all diverted patients. In total, 943 (95.3%) of the PHCCT-diverted patients were diverted to a department at Aarhus University Hospital.ConclusionOur results demonstrate that in 1 out of 40 patient contacts, the anaesthesiologist-staffed PHCCTs in the Central Denmark Region divert critically ill and injured patients directly to a specialised hospital department, bypassing local emergency departments and potentially reducing time to definitive care for these patients. There may be a potential for increased referral of patients with no predefined fast-track directly to specialised departments in the Central Denmark Region.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundCalls for emergency medical assistance at the scene of a motor vehicle crash (MVC) substantially contribute to the demand on ambulance services. Triage by emergency medical dispatch systems is therefore important, to ensure the right care is provided to the right patient, in the right amount of time. A lights and sirens (L&S) response is the highest priority ambulance response, also known as a priority one or hot response. In this context, over triage is defined as dispatching an ambulance with lights and sirens (L&S) to a low acuity MVC and under triage is not dispatching an ambulance with L&S to those who require urgent medical care. We explored the potential for crash characteristics to be used during emergency ambulance calls to identify those MVCs that required a L&S response.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using ambulance and police data from 2014 to 2016. The predictor variables were crash characteristics (e.g. road surface), and Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS) dispatch codes. The outcome variable was the need for a L&S ambulance response. A Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector technique was used to develop decision trees, with over/under triage rates determined for each tree. The model with an under/over triage rate closest to that prescribed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS COT) will be deemed to be the best model (under triage rate of ≤ 5% and over triage rate of between 25-35%.ResultsThe decision tree with a 2.7% under triage rate was closest to that specified by the ACS COT, had as predictors-MPDS codes, trapped, vulnerable road user, anyone aged 75 + , day of the week, single versus multiple vehicles, airbag deployment, atmosphere, surface, lighting and accident type. This model had an over triage rate of 84.8%.ConclusionsWe were able to derive a model with a reasonable under triage rate, however this model also had a high over triage rate. Individual EMS may apply the findings here to their own jurisdictions when dispatching to the scene of a MVC.

Project description:BackgroundTriage is a critical component of prehospital emergency care. Effective triage of patients allows them to receive appropriate care and to judiciously use personnel and hospital resources. In many low-resource settings prehospital triage serves an additional role of determining the level of destination facility. In South Africa, the Western Cape Government innovatively implemented the South African Triage Scale (SATS) in the public Emergency Medical Services (EMS) service in 2012. The prehospital provider perspectives and experiences of using SATS in the field have not been previously studied.MethodsIn this qualitative study, focus group discussions with cohorts of basic, intermediate and advanced life support prehospital providers were conducted and transcribed. A content analysis using an inductive approach was used to code transcripts and identify themes.Results15 EMS providers participated in three focus group discussions. Data saturation was reached and four major themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: Implementation and use of SATS; Effectiveness of SATS; Limitations of the discriminator; and Special EMS considerations. Participants overall felt that SATS was easy to use and allowed improved communication with hospital providers during patient handover. Participants, however, described many clinical cases when their clinical gestalt triaged the patient to a different clinical acuity than generated by SATS. Additionally, they stated many clinical discriminators were too subjective to effectively apply or covered too broad a range of clinical severity (e.g., ingestions). Participants provided examples of how the prehospital environment presents additional challenges to using SATS such as changing patient clinical conditions, transport times and social needs of patients.ConclusionsOverall, participants felt that SATS was an effective tool in prehospital emergency care. However, they described many clinical scenarios where SATS was in conflict with their own assessment, the clinical care needs of the patient or the available prehospital and hospital resources. Many of the identified challenges to using SATS in the prehospital environment could be improved with small changes to SATS and provider re-training.