Development and Validation of the Air Medical Prehospital Triage Score for Helicopter Transport of Trauma Patients

Aeromedical Transport for Critically Ill Patients

Aeromedical transport (AMT) is an integral part of healthcare systems worldwide. In this article, the personnel and equipment required, associated safety considerations, and evidence supporting the use of AMT is reviewed, with an emphasis on helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). Indications for HEMS as guideded by the Air Medical Prehospital Triage Score are presented. Lastly, physiologic considerations, which are important to both AMT crews and receiving clinicians, are reviewed.

Validation of Air Medical Prehospital Triage Score in Determining Resource Utilization at Level 1 Trauma Centers

OBJECTIVE

Overtriage (ie, delivering less severely injured patients via helicopter) is costly, raises safety concerns, and reduces efficiency of the trauma system. The Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) scoring system was developed to determine which trauma patients would gain a survival benefit by air transport. The objective of this study was to evaluate the AMPT scoring system as a method of reducing trauma overtriage when helicopter emergency medical services were used.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all scene trauma transports delivered by helicopter to 1 of 2 level 1 trauma centers was evaluated for 1) hospital stay less than 1 day and 2) failure to meet 1 of the following criteria for resource utilization: intensive care unit admission, an operative procedure within the first 24 hours, the need for blood products, Injury Severity Score ≥ 16, or death during hospitalization. Helicopter emergency medical services personnel recorded specific criteria from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) field trauma triage guidelines and AMPT that were met by transported trauma patients.

RESULTS

There were 244 patients in the study population. Eighty-one (33.2%) patients were discharged within 24 hours; 11 (13.5%) of these patients were positive using AMPT scoring, whereas 44 (54.3%) patients met 1 of the CDC criteria. Similarly, 141 (57.8%) patients failed to meet 1 of the level 1 resource criteria; 19 (13.5%) met the AMPT criteria for air medical transport, whereas 84 (59.6%) met 1 of the CDC criteria. Undertriage was 63.5% for AMPT and 20.2% for CDC based on resource utilization criteria.

CONCLUSION

The AMPT score reduced the number of patients who were inappropriately transported to a trauma center. However, this appeared to be at the expense of undertriage. Future studies should focus on developing a refined air medical-specific triage tool that has both low overtriage rates as well as lower undertriage rates.

Impact of patient, system, and environmental factors on utilization of air medical transport after trauma

BACKGROUND

Air medical transport (AMT) improves outcomes for severely injured patients. The decision to fly patients is complex and must consider multiple factors. Our objective was to evaluate the interaction between geography, patient and environmental factors, and emergency medical services (EMS) system resources on AMT after trauma. We hypothesize that significant geographic variation in AMT utilization will be associated with varying levels of patient, environmental, and EMS resources.

METHODS

Patients transported by EMS in the Pennsylvania state trauma registry 2000 to 2017 were included. We used our previously developed Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT; ≥2 points triage to AMT) score and Geographic Emergency Medical Services Index (GEMSI; higher indicates more system resources) as measures for patient factors and EMS resources, respectively. A mixed-effects logistic regression model determined the association of AMT utilization with patient, system, and environmental variables.

RESULTS

There were 195,354 patients included. Fifty-five percent of variation in AMT utilization was attributed to geographic differences. Triage to AMT by the AMPT score was associated with nearly twice the odds of AMT utilization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.894; 95% confidence interval, 1.765-2.032; p < 0.001). Each 1-point increase in GEMSI was associated with a 6.1% reduction in odds of AMT (0.939; 0.922-0.957; p < 0.001). Younger age, rural location, and more severe injuries were also associated with increased odds of AMT ( p < 0.05). When categorized by GEMSI level, the AMPT score and patient factors were more important for predicting AMT utilization in the middle tercile (moderate EMS resources) compared with the lower (low EMS resources) and higher tercile (high EMS resources). Weather, season, time-of-day, and traffic were all associated with AMT utilization ( p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patient, system, and environmental factors are associated with AMT utilization, which varies geographically and by EMS/trauma system resource availability. A more comprehensive approach to AMT triage could reduce variation and allow more tailored efforts toward optimizing resource allocation and outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Factors Associated With Early Discharge in Pediatric Trauma Patients Transported by Rotor: A Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) play a crucial role in providing timely transport for pediatric trauma patients. This service carries the highest risk of any mode of medical transport and a high financial burden, and patient outcomes are seldom investigated. This study evaluated the characteristics of pediatric trauma patients discharged within 24 hours after transport by HEMS.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective analysis on pediatric trauma patients transported by HEMS from 2019 to 2022. Analyses were performed to identify factors associated with discharge within 24 hours. Factors analyzed included vital signs, Shock Index, Pediatric Age-Adjusted scores, management details, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 466 pediatric trauma patients were transported by HEMS, including 171 patients (36.7%) who were discharged within 24 hours. There were no differences in the rates of blunt and penetrating injury (P = .583). Patients discharged within 24 hours were more likely to have a higher Glasgow Coma Scale score (14 vs. 11, P < .001) and a lower Injury Severity Score (4.9 vs. 14.7, P < .001), required less prehospital fluid resuscitation (5.5 vs. 11.7 mL/kg, P = .039), and had higher levels of serum calcium (9.3 vs. 8.9 mg/dL, P < .001). They were also less likely to meet criteria for level 1 trauma activation (13.0% vs. 40%, P < .001) or to require prehospital respiratory support of any kind (4.1% vs. 31.1%, P < .001). After arrival at the hospital, they were less likely to require blood transfusions (2.9% vs. 29.8%, P < .001) or tranexamic acid (2.9% vs. 11.5%, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Trauma patients with a high Glasgow Coma Scale score and a low Injury Severity Score who do not require critical care or meet the criteria for high-level trauma activation may be suitable for transportation with lower acuity. Further studies aimed at improving triage and implementing improved criteria for the use of HEMS are paramount.

Direct Trauma Center Access by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services is Associated With Improved Survival After Severe Injury

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the association of survival with helicopter transport directly to a trauma center compared with ground transport to a non-trauma center (NTC) and subsequent transfer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Helicopter transport improves survival after injury. One potential mechanism is direct transport to a trauma center when the patient would otherwise be transported to an NTC for subsequent transfer.

METHODS

Scene patients 16 years and above with positive physiological or anatomic triage criteria within PTOS 2000-2017 were included. Patients transported directly to level I/II trauma centers by helicopter were compared with patients initially transported to an NTC by ground with a subsequent helicopter transfer to a level I/II trauma center. Propensity score matching was used to evaluate the association between direct helicopter transport and survival. Individual triage criteria were evaluated to identify patients most likely to benefit from direct helicopter transport.

RESULTS

In all, 36,830 patients were included. Direct helicopter transport was associated with a nearly 2-fold increase in odds of survival compared with NTC ground transport and subsequent transfer by helicopter (aOR 2.78; 95% CI 2.24-3.44, P <0.01). Triage criteria identifying patients with a survival benefit from direct helicopter transport included GCS≤13 (1.71; 1.22-2.41, P <0.01), hypotension (2.56; 1.39-4.71, P <0.01), abnormal respiratory rate (2.30; 1.36-3.89, P <0.01), paralysis (8.01; 2.03-31.69, P <0.01), hemothorax/pneumothorax (2.34; 1.36-4.05, P <0.01), and multisystem trauma (2.29; 1.08-4.84, P =0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct trauma center access is a mechanism driving the survival benefit of helicopter transport. First responders should consider helicopter transport for patients meeting these criteria who would otherwise be transported to an NTC.

Advanced interventions in the pre-hospital resuscitation of patients with non-compressible haemorrhage after penetrating injuries

Abstract

Early haemorrhage control and minimizing the time to definitive care have long been the cornerstones of therapy for patients exsanguinating from non-compressible haemorrhage (NCH) after penetrating injuries, as only basic treatment could be provided on scene. However, more recently, advanced on-scene treatments such as the transfusion of blood products, resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) and resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) have become available in a small number of pre-hospital critical care teams. Although these advanced techniques are included in the current traumatic cardiac arrest algorithm of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), published in 2021, clear guidance on the practical application of these techniques in the pre-hospital setting is scarce. This paper provides a scoping review on how these advanced techniques can be incorporated into practice for the resuscitation of patients exsanguinating from NCH after penetrating injuries, based on available literature and the collective experience of several helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) across Europe who have introduced these advanced resuscitation interventions into routine practice.

Graphical Abstract

The diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools in identifying patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital care providers are usually the first responders for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Early identification of patients with TBI enables them to receive trauma centre care, which improves outcomes. Two recent systematic reviews concluded that prehospital triage tools for undifferentiated major trauma have low accuracy. However, neither review focused specifically on patients with suspected TBI. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the existing evidence on the diagnostic performance of prehospital triage tools for patients with suspected TBI.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the current literature was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane library (inception to 1st June 2021). We also searched Google Scholar, OpenGrey, pre-prints (MedRxiv) and dissertation databases. We included all studies published in English language evaluating the accuracy of prehospital triage tools for TBI. We assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Two reviewers independently performed searches, screened titles and abstracts and undertook methodological quality assessments. Due to the heterogeneity in the population of interest and prehospital triage tools used, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 1787 articles, of which 8 unique eligible studies met the inclusion criteria (5 retrospective, 2 prospective, 1 mixed). Overall, sensitivity of triage tools studied ranged from 19.8% to 87.9% for TBI identification. Specificity ranged from 41.4% to 94.4%. Two decision tools have been validated more than once: HITS-NS (2 studies, sensitivity 28.3-32.6%, specificity 89.1-94.4%) and the Field Triage Decision Scheme (4 studies, sensitivity 19.8-64.5%, specificity 77.4%-93.1%). Existing tools appear to systematically under-triage older patients.

CONCLUSION

Further efforts are needed to improve and optimise prehospital triage tools. Consideration of additional predictors (e.g., biomarkers, clinical decision aids and paramedic judgement) may be required to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Locating trauma centers considering patient safety

Trauma continues to be the leading cause of death and disability in the U.S. for those under the age of 44, making it a prominent public health problem. Recent literature suggests that geographical maldistribution of Trauma Centers (TCs), and the resultant increase of the access time to the nearest TC, could impact patient safety and increase disability or mortality. To address this issue, we introduce the Trauma Center Location Problem (TCLP) that determines the optimal number and location of TCs in order to improve patient safety. We model patient safety through a surrogate measure of mistriages, which refers to a mismatch in the injury severity of a trauma patient and the destination hospital. Our proposed bi-objective optimization model directly accounts for the two types of mistriages, system-related under-triage (srUT) and over-triage (srOT), both of which are estimated using a notional tasking algorithm. We propose a heuristic based on the Particle Swarm Optimization framework to efficiently derive a near-optimal solution to the TCLP for realistic problem sizes. Based on 2012 data from the state of Ohio, we observe that the solutions are sensitive to the choice of weights for srUT and srOT, volume requirements at a TC, and the two thresholds used to mimic EMS decisions. Using our approach to optimize that network resulted in over 31.5% reduction in the objective with only 1 additional TC; redistribution of the existing 21 TCs led to 30.4% reduction.

Appropriate Air Medical Services Utilization and Recommendations for Integration of Air Medical Services Resources into the EMS System of Care: A Joint Position Statement and Resource Document of NAEMSP, ACEP, and AMPA

Air medical services involves providing medical care in transit while using either fixed wing (airplane) or rotor wing (helicopter) aircraft to move patients between locations. The modern use and availability of air medical services has expanded access to various health system resources, including specialty care. While this is generally beneficial, such expansion has also contributed to the complexity of health care delivery systems.(1, 2) Since the publication of the 2013 joint position statement Appropriate and Safe Utilization of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services,(3) research has shown that patient benefit is gained from the clinical care capabilities of air medical services independent of potential time saved when transporting patients.(4-6) Because the evidence basis for utilization of air medical services continues to evolve, NAEMSP, ACEP, and AMPA believe that an update regarding the appropriate utilization of air medical services is warranted, and that such guidance for utilization can be divided into three major categories: clinical considerations, safety considerations, and system integration and quality assurance considerations.

Geospatial assessment of helicopter emergency medical service overtriage

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of benefit after injury, helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) overtriage remains high. Scene and transfer overtriage are distinct processes. Our objectives were to identify geographic variation in overtriage and patient-level predictors, and determine if overtriage impacts population-level outcomes.

METHODS

Patients 16 years or older undergoing scene or interfacility HEMS in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study were included. Overtriage was defined as discharge within 24 hours of arrival. Patients were mapped to zip code, and rates of overtriage were calculated. Hot spot analysis identified regions of high and low overtriage. Mixed-effects logistic regression determined patient predictors of overtriage. High and low overtriage regions were compared for population-level injury fatality rates. Analyses were performed for scene and transfer patients separately.

RESULTS

A total of 85,572 patients were included (37.4% transfers). Overtriage was 5.5% among scene and 11.8% among transfer HEMS (p < 0.01). Hot spot analysis demonstrated geographic variation in high and low overtriage for scene and transfer patients. For scene patients, overtriage was associated with distance (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.06 per 10 miles; p = 0.04), neck injury (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60; p = 0.04), and single-system injury (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.64; p < 0.01). For transfer patients, overtriage was associated with rurality (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.22-2.21; p < 0.01), facial injury (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.44; p = 0.02), and single-system injury (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-2.19; p < 0.01). For scene patients, high overtriage was associated with higher injury fatality rate (coefficient, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.68-1.76; p < 0.01); low overtriage was associated with lower injury fatality rate (coefficient, -0.73; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.68; p < 0.01). For transfer patients, high overtriage was not associated with injury fatality rate (p = 0.53); low overtriage was associated with lower injury fatality rate (coefficient, -2.87; 95% CI, -4.59 to -1.16; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Geographic overtriage rates vary significantly for scene and transfer HEMS, and are associated with population-level outcomes. These findings can help guide targeted performance improvement initiatives to reduce HEMS overtriage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

Field-Triage, Hospital-Triage and Triage-Assessment: A Literature Review of the Current Phases of Adult Trauma Triage

ABSTRACT

Despite major improvements in the United States trauma system over the past two decades, prehospital trauma triage is a significant challenge. Undertriage is associated with increased mortality, and overtriage results in significant resource overuse. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma benchmarks for undertriage and overtriage are not being met. Many barriers to appropriate field triage exist, including lack of a formal definition for major trauma, absence of a simple and widely applicable triage mode, and emergency medical service adherence to triage protocols. Modern trauma triage systems should ideally be based on the need for intervention rather than injury severity. Future studies should focus on identifying the ideal definition for major trauma and creating triage models that can be easily deployed. This narrative review article presents challenges and potential solutions for prehospital trauma triage.

Trauma outcomes for blunt and penetrating injuries by mode of transportation and day/night shift

BACKGROUND

Effective management of trauma patients is dependent on pre-hospital triage systems and proper in-hospital treatment regardless of time of admission. We aim to investigate any differences in adjusted all-cause mortality between day vs. night arrival for adult trauma patients who were transported to the hospital via ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) and to determine if care/outcomes are inferior when admitted during the night shift as compared to the day shift.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of adult blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring full team trauma activation at an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT)-verified Level 1 trauma center from 2011 to 2019. Descriptive statistical analyses, chi-square analyses, independent-sample t-tests, and Fisher's exact tests were performed. Primary measurement outcome was adjusted observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratios utilizing TRISS methodology.

RESULTS

8370 patients with blunt injuries and 1216 patients with penetrating injuries were analyzed. There were no significant differences in day vs. night O/Es overall (blunt 0.65 vs. 0.59; p = 0.46) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.87; p = 0.97). There also were no significant differences when stratified by GEMS (blunt 0.64 vs. 0.55; p = 0.08) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 1.10; p = 0.09) and HEMS admissions (blunt 0.76 vs. 0.75; p = 0.91) (penetrating 0.88 vs. 0.91; p = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

At an ACSCOT-verified Level 1 Trauma Center, care/outcomes of patients admitted during the night shift were not inferior to those admitted during the day shift. Trauma Center verification by the ACSCOT and multidisciplinary collaboration may allow for consistent care despite injury type and time of day.

Emergency Medical Service Transport Time and Trauma Outcomes at an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center: Evaluation of Prehospital Emergency Medical Service Response

BACKGROUND

The use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) for trauma patients has been debated since its introduction. We aim to compare outcomes for trauma patients transported by ground EMS (GEMS) vs. HEMS using raw and adjusted mortality in a level 1 trauma center.

METHODS

A 6-year retrospective cohort study utilizing our level 1 trauma center registry for patients transferred by GEMS or HEMS was performed. Demographics and outcome measures were compared. Raw and adjusted mortality was evaluated. Adjusted mortality was determined incorporating confounders, including patient demographics, comorbid conditions, mechanism of injury, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score, and EMS transport time. Chi-square, multivariable logistic regression, and independent sample T-test were utilized with significance, defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Of 12 633 patients, 10 656 were transported via GEMS and 1977 with HEMS. Mean age was 55 for GEMS and 40 for HEMS (P < .001). Mean ISS was 9.29 and 11.73 for GEMS and HEMS (P < .001). Mean Revised Trauma Score was higher (less severe) for GEMS vs. HEMS (7.6 vs. 7.12, P < .001). Mean transport times for GEMS and HEMS was 39.45 vs. 47.29 minutes (P = .02). Raw mortality was 2.55% (307/10 656) for GEMS and 6.78% (134/1977) for HEMS. Adjusted mortality revealed a 16.6% increased mortality for GEMS compared to HEMS (adjusted odds ratio = 1.166, 95% CI: .815-1.668).

CONCLUSIONS

Air-lifted trauma patients were younger, more severely injured, and more hemodynamically unstable and required longer transport time but experienced lower adjusted mortality. Future research is needed to investigate whether reducing transport times and augmenting the advanced care already implemented by HEMS crews can improve outcomes.

Comparative Study on the Outcome of Stroke Patients Transferred by Doctor Helicopters and Ground Ambulances in South Korea: A Retrospective Controlled Study

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) for its economic operations in South Korea. This study targeted stroke patients who were transported via HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) from the scene of an accident to a regional emergency medical center. From this patient population, stroke patients who traveled at least 50 km from the scene of the cerebral infarction to the hospital with analyzable outcome data were extracted and included in this study. This study included 26 HEMS and 102 GEMS stroke patients from a pool of 183 potential patients. The survival-to-discharge rate of patients transported via HEMS (96.2%; 25/26) was significantly higher than that of patients transported via GEMS (83.2%; 104/128) (P=0.001). The HEMS transfer was quicker with respect to the decision-making process because the emergency physician actively evaluates and communicates on-site and during in-transit travel to request an appointment immediately upon arrival at the emergency room. These results indicate that using HEMS increased discharge and survival rates and reduced in-hospital mortality of HEMS of stroke patients with a reduced admission time. This result association leads to reasonable cost-effectiveness and efficient estimates overall. In conclusion, HEMS indicate reduced time taken for stroke patients to be hospitalized and treated and decreased mortality after 24 hours. According to this result, HEMS transport can be more effective than GEMS in long-distance delivery of stroke patients.

Validity of a five-level prehospital triage system in Japan: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

The increasing worldwide demand for ambulance transport may worsen patient prognosis due to a prolonged response time and overcrowding in the emergency department. Triage in the prehospital setting may reduce the demand for ambulance transport by advising low-acuity patients seek non-emergency medical care. In Japan, a five-level triage system that allows emergency medical services (EMS) to triage patients has been implemented since 2014. This study aimed to validate the five-level triage system.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients aged ≥16 years who were transported by EMS to a tertiary-care hospital in Japan from April 2018 to June 2018. We used admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) as the primary outcome. Our secondary outcome was overall admission. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the strength of association between triage acuity and admission (ICU and overall).

RESULTS

A total of 1261 patients were included in the analysis. The odds ratios of ICU admission were 9.62 (95% confidence interval: 5.66-16.3) in Level 1 and 2.93 (95% confidence interval: 1.60-5.38) in Level 2 compared with reference groups composed of Levels 4 and 5. Similar associations were found for triage acuity and overall admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study validates the five-level prehospital triage system for patients transported by EMS and demonstrates an association between the triage acuity and ICU admissions.

Stop Flying the Patients! Evaluation of the Overutilization of Helicopter Transport of Trauma Patients

INTRODUCTION

Helicopter transport is a resource intensive and expensive method for transportation of patients by helicopter. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of helicopter transport determined by procedural care within 1-h of transfer at an urban level I trauma center.

METHODS

All trauma patients transported by helicopter from January 2015-December 2017 to an urban level I trauma center from referring hospitals or the scene were retrospectively analyzed. A subgroup analysis was performed evaluating patients that required a procedure or operation within 1-h of transport compared with the remainder of the patient cohort who were transported via helicopter.

RESULTS

A total of 1590 patients were transported by helicopter. Thirty-nine percent of patients (n = 612) were admitted directly to the floor from the trauma bay and 16% (n = 249) of patients required only observation or were discharged home after helicopter transfer. Approximately one-third of the entire study cohort (36%, n = 572) required any procedure, with a median time to procedure of 31.5 h (interquartile range 54.4). Only 13% (n = 74) required a procedure within 1-h of helicopter transport. The average distance (in miles) if the patient had been driven by ground transport rather than helicopter was 67.0 miles (SD ± 27.9) and would take an estimated 71.5 min (±28.4) for patients who required a procedure within 1-h compared with 61.6 miles (SD ± 30.9) with an estimated 66.1 min (SD ± 30.8) for the remainder of the cohort (P value 0.899 and 0.680, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates that helicopter transport was not necessary for the vast majority of trauma patients transported via helicopter.

Characteristics of scene trauma patients discharged within 24-hours of air medical transport

Introduction

Helicopters play an important role in trauma; however, this service comes with safety risks, high transport costs, and downstream care charges.

Objective

Our objective was to determine the characteristics of early discharged trauma patients (<24 h length of stay) in order to reduce overtriage.

Methodology

Data were obtained from the trauma registries at one of two Level 1 trauma centers. Eligible patients included all scene trauma patients transported by helicopter to the Level 1 trauma centers from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, who had a length of stay of 24 h or less. Patient factors such as age, gender, scene location, loaded miles, and transportation costs were collected. Trauma type, mechanism of injury, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, and prehospital vital signs were documented. Driving distances between the accident scene to local hospital, home of record to local hospital, and home of record to the Level I trauma center were also calculated for patients transported to Level 1 trauma center.

Results

Two hundred and twenty-six of 1042 total patients (21.7%) were discharged within 24 h of helicopter transport from the accident scene to trauma center. Less than 2% of patients were in the age group of 70 years or older. Only 2 (0.88%) patients discharged within 24 h had a prehospital systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg. For patients transported to Level 1 trauma center, the average loaded miles were 50.51 ± 14.99, with average transport charges being $27,921.19± $3536.61. Twenty-one percent of Level 1 trauma center patients were self-pay, and families typically drove 71.7 ± 123.23 miles to Level 1 trauma center versus 28.74 ± 40.62 to their local emergency department.

Conclusions

A significant number of patients transported from the scene are discharged within 24 h of admission to a trauma center. These patients rarely have prehospital hypotension, do not receive significant volumes of crystalloid resuscitation, and are infrequently over 70 years of age. One in five patients has no third-party coverage and assumes $27,921.19 in average transport charges.

Trauma system resource preservation: A simple scene triage tool can reduce helicopter emergency medical services overutilization in a state trauma system

BACKGROUND

Helicopter emergency medical services improve survival in some injured patients but current utilization leads to significant overtriage with considerable numbers of transported patients discharged home from the emergency department or found to have non-time-sensitive injuries. Current triage models for utilization are complex and untested.

METHODS

Data from a state trauma registry were reviewed from 1987 to 1993 and from 2013 to 2015 and compared. Data from 2013 to 2015 were analyzed for field information found to influence mortality and a model for low mortality-risk patients designed.

RESULTS

Indexed to population, a major increase in numbers of injured patients transported directly to designated trauma centers (39.849-167.626/100,000/year) occurred with an increased portion transported by helicopter emergency medical services from 7.28% to 9.26%. A simple triage tool to predict low mortality rates was designed utilizing results from logistic regression. Nongeriatric adult patients (age, 16.0-69.9 years) with a blunt injury mechanism, normal Glasgow Coma Scale motor score, pulse rate of 60 bpm to 120 bpm and respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute to 29 breaths per minute are at low risk for mortality. Cost for helicopter transportation was substantially higher than ground transportation based on available data. Cost differentials in transport mode increased patient financial risk when helicopter transportation was utilized.

CONCLUSION

Implementing a simple decision tool designating nongeriatric adult patients with a blunt injury mechanism, normal Glasgow Coma Scale motor score, systolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg, pulse rate of 60 bpm to 120 bpm, and respiratory rate of 10 breaths per minute to 29 breaths per minute to ground transportation would result in substantial savings without an increase in mortality and reduce risk of patient financial harm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/Epidemiological study, level IV. Economic and value based evaluation, level IV.

Are there Field Triage Criteria that Can Predict Low-Yield Air Medical Transports?

INTRODUCTION

Air medical transport of trauma patients from the scene of injury plays a critical role in the delivery of severely injured patients to trauma centers. Over-triage of patients to trauma centers reduces the system efficiency and jeopardizes safety of air medical crews.

HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to determine which triage factors utilized by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers are strong predictors of early discharge for trauma patients transported by helicopter to a trauma center.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review over a two-year period was performed for trauma patients flown from the injury site into a Level I trauma center by an air medical transport program. Demographic and clinical data were collected on each patient. Prehospital factors such as Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), intubation status, mechanism of injury, anatomic injuries, physiologic parameters, and any combinations of these factors were investigated to determine which triage criteria accurately predicted early discharge. Hospital factors such as Injury Severity Score (ISS), length-of-stay (LOS), survival, and emergency department disposition were also collected. Early discharge was defined as a hospital stay of less than 24 hours in a patient who survives their injuries. A more stringent definition of appropriate triage was defined as a patient with in-hospital death, an ISS >15, those taken to the operating room (OR) or intensive care unit (ICU), or those receiving blood products. Those patients who failed to meet these criteria were also used to determine over-triage rates.

RESULTS

An overall early discharge rate of 35% was found among the study population. Furthermore, when the more stringent definition was applied, over-triage rates were as high as 85%. Positive predictive values indicated that patients who met at least one anatomic and physiologic criteria were appropriately transported by helicopter as 94% of these patients had stays longer than 24 hours. No other criteria or combination of criteria had a high predictive value for early discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

No individual triage criteria or combination of criteria examined demonstrated the ability to uniformly predict an early discharge. Although helicopter transport and subsequent hospital care is costly and resource consuming, it appears that a significant number of patients will be discharged within 24 hours of their transport to a trauma center. Future studies must determine the impact of eliminating "low-yield" triage criteria on under-triage of scene trauma patients.

Analysis of Transport to an American College of Surgeons Level I Trauma Center

INTRODUCTION

Efficient patient transportation by ground emergency medical services (GEMS) or helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) to a trauma center is vital for optimal care. We investigated differences between the modes of transport in terms of demographics, injury, scene location, and outcome.

SETTING

Morristown Medical Center (MMC), Morristown, NJ METHODS: All 903 trauma admissions in 2016 by advanced life support (ALS) to MMC, a Level I Trauma Center, were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

22% of admissions were HEMS and 78% were GEMS. HEMS patients had higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS) (p<0.001); however, mortality and length of stay were not statistically different. The percentage of pediatric patients transported by HEMS that were discharged home after emergency department evaluation was greater than the older populations (p<0.001). Older age and higher ISS had the largest impact on mortality (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

We believe our current use of HEMS is adequate since patient outcomes between HEMS and GEMS was similar, even though HEMS patients have higher ISS. However, helicopter use in the pediatric population was over-utilized, possibly due to the scarcity of hospitals capable of managing pediatric traumas. Implementation of the Air Medical Prehospital Triage scoring system may also help correct for these unnecessary HEMS transports.

Compliance to prehospital trauma triage protocols worldwide: A systematic review

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.

A trauma network with centralized and local health care structures: Evaluating the effectiveness of the first certified Trauma Network of the German Society of Trauma Surgery

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a global burden of disease and one of the main causes of death worldwide. Therefore, many countries around the world have implemented a wide range of different initiatives to minimize mortality rates after trauma. One of these initiatives is the bundling of treatment expertise in trauma centers and the establishment of trauma networks. Germany has a decentralized system of trauma care medical centers. Severely injured patients ought to receive adequate treatment in both level I and level II centers. This study investigated the effectiveness of a decentralized network and the question whether level I and level II centers have comparable patient outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2009, the first trauma network DGU® in Germany was certified in the rural area of Eastern Bavaria. All patients admitted to the 25 participating hospitals were prospectively included in this network in the framework of a study sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research between March 2012 and February 2014. 2 hospitals were level I centers (maximal care centers), 8 hospitals were level II centers, and 15 hospitals were level III centers. The criterion for study inclusion was an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 for patients´ primarily admitted to a level I or a level II center. Exclusion criteria were transferal to another hospital within 48 h, an unknown revised injury severity classification II score (RISC II), or primary admittance to a level III center (n = 52). 875 patients were included in the study. Univariate analyses were used regarding the preclinical and clinical parameters, the primary endpoint mortality rate, and the secondary endpoints length of stay, organ failure, and neurological outcome (GOS). The primary endpoint was additionally evaluated by means of multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Indices for injury severity (GCS, AISHead, ISS, and NISS) as well as the predicted probability of death (RISC II) were higher in level I centers than in level II centers. No significant differences were found between the mortality rate of the unadjusted analysis [level I: 21.6% (CI: 16.5, 27.9), level II: 18.1% (CI: 14.4, 22.5), p = 0.28] and that of the adjusted analysis [level I SMR: 0.94 (CI: 0.72, 1.21), level II SMR: 1.18 (CI 0.95, 1.48) SMR: expected vs. calculated mortality rate according to RISC II]. Multivariable analysis showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13% (RISC II). The number need to treat was 10 patients.

DISCUSSION

This study showed that a rural trauma network with centralized and local structures may achieve equivalent results with regard to mortality rates to those obtained in level I and level II centers. These results were furthered by a certain preclinical centralization (24/7 air rescue) of patients. The study also showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13%. Preclinical and initial clinical evaluation with regard to probable mortality rates should be further improved to identify patients who would benefit from admittance to a level I center.

Comparing the Air Medical Prehospital Triage Score With Current Practice for Triage of Injured Patients to Helicopter Emergency Medical Services: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Question

Is a selective triage strategy more cost-effective than current practices for determining which injured patients should be transported by helicopter vs ground ambulance to a trauma center?

Findings

In a nationally representative cohort using cost-effectiveness modeling, current helicopter triage practices have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $255 333 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with using the Air Medical Prehospital Triage score, which is significantly more than the generally accepted threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year for cost-effective medical interventions.

Meaning

Current helicopter triage practices are not cost-effective compared with the Air Medical Prehospital Triage score for determining helicopter vs ground transport for trauma patients.

Importance

Little evidence exists to guide helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) triage, and current practice is inefficient. The Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) score was developed to identify patients most likely to benefit from HEMS compared with ground EMS. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the potential effect on costs and outcomes of a more targeted HEMS triage strategy, such as the AMPT score.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current practice compared with the AMPT score for HEMS scene triage of trauma patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cost-effectiveness Markov model was developed for the US health care system to compare current practice with the AMPT score as HEMS scene triage strategies from the health care system perspective over a patient lifetime horizon. A base case was estimated using national data of patient characteristics from the National Trauma Databank from 2007 to 2012. Model inputs, including demographic information, health care costs, survival, and utility estimates, were derived from literature and national registries. Triage strategies were modeled as probability of HEMS transport. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate survival probability between HEMS and ground EMS under the triage strategies. Costs considered included transport reimbursements, hospitalization, cost of health care in the first year postinjury, and annual cost of health care after the first year postinjury. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate robustness of model assumptions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, with a threshold of $100 000 or less per quality-adjusted life-year defining cost-effectiveness.

Results

The base case had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $255 333 per quality-adjusted life-year for current practice compared with the AMPT score. Assuming 20% of patients have severe injuries and assuming HEMS only benefits these patients, current practice had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $176 686 per quality-adjusted life-year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that current practice is inferior in 85% of iterations, only becoming favored when the cost-effectiveness threshold is greater than $310 000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions and Relevance

Current practice is not cost-effective compared with the AMPT score for HEMS scene triage. The AMPT score was the preferred strategy across a range of model input values in sensitivity analyses. The AMPT score identifies patients most likely to benefit from HEMS while potentially reducing costs to the health care system and should be considered in air medical transport protocols for trauma patients.

Prehospital Assessment of Trauma

The organization of prehospital care for trauma patients began in the military arena. At the urging of multiple stakeholders and providers, these lessons were applied to the civilian setting and emergency medical services were created across the nation. Advances have taken place in the triage, transport, and management of severely injured patients. Many issues remain in the care of trauma patients in the prehospital environment. Collaboration between stakeholders and providers, regionalization of trauma care, and protocol-driven care may be solutions to some of these issues. Further research is necessary to dictate standard of care in this early phase after injury.

Accuracy of prehospital triage protocols in selecting severely injured patients: A systematic review

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.

External validation of the Air Medical Prehospital Triage score for identifying trauma patients likely to benefit from scene helicopter transport

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

Patients 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.

RESULTS

There 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.

CONCLUSIONS

This 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 EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic/prognostic study, level III; therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Mortality following helicopter versus ground transport of injured children

INTRODUCTION

Injured children may be transported to trauma centers by helicopter air ambulance (HAA); however, a benefit in outcomes to this expensive resource has not been consistently shown in the literature and there is concern that HAA is over-utilized. A study that adequately controls for selection biases in transport mode is needed to determine which injured children benefit from HAA. The purpose of this study was to determine if HAA impacts mortality differently in minimally and severely injured children and if there are predictors of over-triage of HAA in children that can be identified.

METHODS

Children ≤18 years of age transported by HAA or ground ambulance (GA) from scene to a trauma center were identified from the 2010-2011 National Trauma Data Bank. Analysis was stratified by Injury Severity Score (ISS) into low ISS (≤15) and high ISS (>15) groups. Following propensity score matching of HAA to GA patients, conditional multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine if transport mode independently impacted mortality in each stratum. Rates and predictors of over-triage of HAA were also determined.

RESULTS

Transport by HAA occurred in 8218 children (5574 low ISS, 2644 high ISS) and by GA in 35305 (30506 low ISS, 4799 high ISS). Overall mortality was greater in HAA patients (4.0 vs 1.4%, p<0.001). After propensity score matching, mortality was equivalent between HAA and GA for low ISS patients (0.2 vs 0.2%, p=0.82) but, for high ISS patients, mortality was lower in HAA (9.0 vs 11.1% p=0.014). On multivariable analysis, HAA was associated with decreased mortality in high ISS patients (OR=0.66, p=0.017) but not in low ISS patients (OR=1.13, p=0.73). Discharge within 24h of HAA transport occurred in 36.5% of low ISS patients versus 7.4% high ISS patients (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a national cohort adjusted for nonrandom assignment of transport mode, a survival benefit to HAA transport exists only for severely injured children with ISS >15. Many children with minor injuries are transported by helicopter despite frequent dismissal within 24h and no mortality benefit.

Current use and outcomes of helicopter transport in pediatric trauma: a review of 18,291 transports

PURPOSE

The role of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in pediatric trauma remains controversial. We examined its use in pediatric trauma and its effectiveness in children with moderate/severe injuries.

METHODS

All blunt/penetrating trauma patients ≤18years old in the National Trauma Data Bank were evaluated for use of HEMS and in-hospital mortality. In a comparative effectiveness study, only patients treated at level I/II pediatric centers with injury severity score (ISS)≥9 were included.

RESULTS

Of 127,489 included patients, 18,291 (14%) arrived via HEMS, compared to 56% by ground ambulance and 29% by private vehicle/walk-in. HEMS patients had more severe injuries (ISS≥25; 28% vs. 14%) and altered mental status (GCS≤8; 29% vs. 11%), but also contained many patients with only minor injuries or no major physiologic derangements. In unadjusted analysis, HEMS was associated with increased mortality (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.4-1.7). However, it had decreased mortality by regression (0.5; 0.4-0.6) and propensity analysis (0.7; 0.6-0.8) to adjust for confounders.

CONCLUSION

We found multiple indicators for overuse of HEMS, with nearly 40% of children having only minor injuries. In moderate/severe injuries, HEMS is associated with decreased mortality, potentially saving one life for every 47 flights. Research is needed to determine appropriate criteria for helicopter triage.

COMPARATIVE STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Helicopters and injured kids: Improved survival with scene air medical transport in the pediatric trauma population

BACKGROUND

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are frequently used to transport injured children, despite unclear evidence of benefit. The study objective was to evaluate the association of HEMS compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) transport with outcomes in a national sample of pediatric trauma patients.

METHODS

Patients 15 years or younger undergoing scene transport by HEMS or GEMS in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2012 were included. Propensity score matching was used to match HEMS and GEMS patients for likelihood of HEMS transport based on demographics, prehospital physiology and time, injury severity, and geographic region. Absolute standardized differences of less than 0.1 indicated adequate covariate balance between groups after matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival, while the secondary outcome was discharge disposition in survivors. Conditional logistic regression determined the association between HEMS versus GEMS transport with outcomes while controlling for demographics, admission physiology, injury severity, nonaccidental trauma, and in-hospital complications not accounted for in the propensity score. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with a transport time of greater than 15 minutes to capture patients with the potential for HEMS transport.

RESULTS

A total of 25,700 HEMS/GEMS pairs were matched from 166,594 patients. Groups were well matched, with all propensity score variables having absolute standardized differences of less than 0.1. In matched patients, HEMS was associated with a 72% increase in odds of survival compared with GEMS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.36; p < 0.01). Transport mode was not associated with discharge disposition (p = 0.47). Subgroup analysis included 17,657 HEMS/GEMS pairs. HEMS was again associated with a significant increase in odds of survival (adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.65; p < 0.01), while transport mode was not associated with discharge disposition (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

Scene transport by HEMS was associated with improved odds of survival compared with GEMS in pediatric trauma patients. Further study is warranted to understand the underlying mechanisms and develop specific triage criteria for HEMS transport in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level III.