Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria

Cutoff of the reverse shock index multiplied by the Glasgow coma scale for predicting in-hospital mortality in adult patients with trauma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients at risk of potential death and timely transfer to appropriate healthcare facilities are critical for reducing the number of preventable trauma deaths. This study aimed to establish a cutoff value to predict in-hospital mortality using the reverse shock index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale (rSIG).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study used data from 23 emergency departments in South Korea between January 2011 and December 2020. The outcome variable was the in-hospital mortality. The relationship between rSIG and in-hospital mortality was plotted using the shape-restricted regression spline method. To set a cutoff for rSIG, we found the point on the curve where mortality started to increase and the point where the slope of the mortality curve changed the most. We also calculated the cutoff value for rSIG using Youden's index.

RESULTS

A total of 318,506 adult patients with trauma were included. The shape-restricted regression spline curve showed that in-hospital mortality began to increase when the rSIG value was less than 18.86, and the slope of the graph increased the most at 12.57. The cutoff of 16.5, calculated using Youden's index, was closest to the target under-triage and over-triage rates, as suggested by the American College of Surgeons, when applied to patients with an rSIG of 20 or less. In addition, in patients with traumatic brain injury, when the rSIG value was over 25, in-hospital mortality tended to increase as the rSIG value increased.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose an rSIG cutoff value of 16.5 as a predictor of in-hospital mortality in adult patients with trauma. However, in patients with traumatic brain injury, a high rSIG is also associated with in-hospital mortality. Appropriate cutoffs should be established for this group in the future.

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.

Undertriage of Severely Injured Trauma Patients

INTRODUCTION

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) delineates trauma team activation (TTA) criteria to identify seriously injured trauma patients in the field. Patients are deemed to be severely undertriaged (SU), placing them at risk for adverse outcomes, when they do not meet TTA criteria but nonetheless sustain significant injuries (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥25).

OBJECTIVES

Delineate patient demographics, injuries, and outcomes after SU.

PARTICIPANTS

Trauma patients presenting to our ACS-verified Level 1 trauma center with ISS ≥25 were included (11/2015-03/2022). Transfers and private vehicle transports were excluded. Patients were dichotomized and compared by trauma arrival level: TTA (Appropriately Triaged, AT) vs routine consults (SU).

RESULTS

Study criteria were satisfied by 1653 patients: 1375 (83%) AT and 278 (17%) SU. Severely undertriaged patients were older than AT patients (47 vs 36 years, P < .001). Severely undertriaged occurred almost exclusively following blunt trauma (96% vs 71%, P < .001). Injury Severity Score was lower following SU than AT (29 vs 32, P < .001). The most common severe injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale score [AIS] ≥3) among the SU group were in the Chest (n = 179, 64%). Severely undertriaged patients necessitated emergent intubation (n = 34, 12%), surgery (n = 59, 21%), and angioembolization (n = 22, 8%) at high rates. Severely undertriaged mortality was n = 40, 14%.

CONCLUSION

Severely undertriaged occurred among a substantial proportion of ISS ≥25 patients, predominately following blunt trauma. Severe chest injuries were most likely to evade capture. Rates of intubation, emergent intervention, and in-hospital mortality were high after SU. Efforts should be made to identify such patients in the field as they may benefit from TTA.

Patient Outcomes Based on the 2011 CDC Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients drive the destination decision for millions of emergency medical services (EMS)-transported trauma patients annually, yet limited information exists regarding performance and relationship with patient outcomes as a whole.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of positive findings on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients with hospitalization and mortality.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all 911 responses from the 2019 ESO Data Collaborative research dataset with complete Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients and linked emergency department dispositions, excluding children and cardiac arrests prior to EMS arrival. Patients were categorized by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients step(s) met. Outcomes were hospitalization and emergency department or inhospital mortality.

RESULTS

There were 86,462 records included: n = 65,967 (76.3%) met no criteria, n = 16,443 (19.0%) met one step (n = 1,571 [9.6%] vitals, n = 1,030 [6.3%] anatomy of injury, n = 993 [6.0%] mechanism of injury, and n = 12,849 [78.1%] special considerations), and n = 4,052 (4.7%) met multiple. Compared with meeting no criteria, hospitalization odds increased threefold for vitals (odds ratio [OR]: 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.77-3.40), fourfold for anatomy of injury (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 3.48-4.46), twofold for mechanism of injury (OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.74-2.29), or special considerations (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 2.36-2.56). Hospitalization odds increased ninefold when positive in multiple steps (OR: 8.97, 95% CI: 8.37-9.62). Overall, n = 84,473 (97.7%) had mortality data available, and n = 886 (1.0%) died. When compared with meeting no criteria, mortality odds increased 10-fold when positive in vitals (OR: 9.58, 95% CI: 7.30-12.56), twofold for anatomy of injury (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.28-4.29), or special considerations (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.71-2.60). There was no difference when only positive for mechanism of injury (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.03-1.54). Mortality odds increased 23-fold when positive in multiple steps (OR: 22.7, 95% CI: 19.7-26.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients meeting multiple Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients steps were at greater risk of hospitalization and death. When meeting only one step, anatomy of injury was associated with greater risk of hospitalization; vital sign criteria were associated with greater risk of mortality.

Canceled Air Ambulance Trauma Scene Calls: A Prospective Observational Study of Causes and Outcomes of Trauma Auto-launch Cancellations

OBJECTIVE

Direct transport, occasionally by helicopter, to a trauma hospital for severely injured patients is associated with decreased mortality. This study sought to determine causes for air ambulance trauma response cancellations and secondarily to identify patients who underwent secondary transfer to a trauma center after a canceled air ambulance dispatch.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study used administrative databases from August 2020 to August 2021 to collect data related to canceled trauma calls. Frequencies of cancellation reasons and transferred patients were summarized, and the estimated delay to trauma center arrival was calculated. Subsequent probabilistic matching was performed to identify patients who underwent secondary transfer.

RESULTS

Of 3,232 trauma calls, 1,924 were canceled for reasons including the trauma bypass criteria not being met, patient brought to trauma center, and patient refused transfer. Of the 1,117 patients for whom an air ambulance was canceled because they did not meet the trauma bypass criteria, 184 (16.5%) were later transferred to a lead trauma hospital, with a median delay of 4.12 hours (interquartile range = 2.57-7.35 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Most scene call cancellations were due to patients not meeting the trauma bypass criteria; yet, 16.5% of these patients were later transported to a trauma center. Interventions are needed in education, adherence, and modification of the trauma bypass criteria.