Validation of the Swedish Trauma Registry (SweTrau).

PURPOSE: Validation of registries is important to ensure accuracy of data and registry-based research. This is often done by comparisons of the original registry data with other sources, e.g. another registry or a re-registration of data. Founded in 2011, the Swedish Trauma Registry (SweTrau) consists of variables based on international consensus (the Utstein Template of Trauma). This project aimed to perform the first validation of SweTrau. METHODS: On-site re-registration was performed on randomly selected trauma patients and compared to the registration in SweTrau. Accuracy (exact agreement), correctness (exact agreement plus data within acceptable range), comparability (similarity with other registries), data completeness (1-missing data) and case completeness (1-missing cases) were deemed as either good ([Formula: see text] 85%), adequate (70-84%) or poor (< 70%). Correlation was determined as either excellent ([Formula: see text] 0.8), strong (0.6-0.79), moderate (0.4-0.59) or weak (< 0.4). RESULTS: The data in SweTrau had good accuracy (85.8%), correctness (89.7%) and data completeness (88.5%), as well as strong or excellent correlation (87.5%). Case completeness was 44.3%, however, for NISS > 15 case completeness was 100%. Median time to registration was 4.5 months, with 84.2% registered one year after the trauma. The comparability showed an accordance with the Utstein Template of Trauma of almost 90%. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of SweTrau is good, with high accuracy, correctness, data completeness and correlation. The data are comparable to other trauma registries using the Utstein Template of Trauma; however, timeliness and case completeness are areas of improvement.

Trauma triage criteria as predictors of severe injury - a Swedish multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate performance of trauma team activation (TTA) criteria is important in order to accurately triage trauma patients. The Swedish National Trauma Triage Criteria (SNTTC) consists of 29 criteria that trigger either a Trauma Alert, the highest level of TTA, or a Trauma Response. This study aimed to evaluate the SNTTC and its accuracy in predicting a severely injured patient in a multicenter setting. METHODS: A cohort study in Sweden involving six trauma receiving hospitals. Data was collected from the Swedish Trauma Registry. Some 626 patients were analyzed with regard to the specific criteria used to initiate the TTA, injury severity with New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and emergency interventions. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of the criteria were calculated, as well as undertriage and overtriage. RESULTS: All 29 criteria of SNTTC had a sensitivity > 80% for identifying a severely injured patient. The 16 Trauma Alert Criteria had a lower sensitivity of 62.6% but higher LR+ (3.5 vs all criteria 1.4), specificity (82.3 vs 39.1%) and PPV (55.4 vs 37.6%) and the highest accuracy (AUC 0.724). When using only the six physiological criteria, sensitivity (44.8%) and accuracy (AUC 0.690) decreased while LR+ (6.7), specificity (93.3%) and PPV (70.2%) improved. CONCLUSION: SNTTC is efficient in identifying severely injured patients. The current set of criteria exhibits the best sensitivity compared to other examined combinations and no additional criterion was found to improve the protocol enough to promote a change.

A prospective stepped wedge cohort evaluation of the new national trauma team activation criteria in Sweden - the TRAUMALERT study.

BACKGROUND: Trauma triage based on prehospital information facilitates correct allocation of in-hospital resources. The Swedish national two-tier trauma team activation (TTA) criteria were revised in 2016. The current study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the new criteria. METHODS: Five centres covering trauma care for 1.2 million inhabitants registered all trauma patients prospectively in the Swedish trauma registry (SweTrau) prior to and after stepwise introduction of new TTA criteria within the cohort (a prospective stepped-wedge cohort study design; period August 2016-November 2017). Evaluation of full- and limited-TTA frequency, under- and overtriage were performed at equal duration before and after this change. RESULTS: The centres registered 1948 patients, 1882 (96.6%) of which were included in the study. With new criteria, frequency of full-TTA was unchanged, while limited-TTA decreased with 46.3% (from 988 to 531). 30-day trauma mortality was unchanged. The overtriage was 107/150 (71.3%) with former criteria, and 104/144 (72.2%) with new criteria, p = 0.866. Undertriage was 50/1037 (4.8%) versus 39/551 (7.1%), p = 0.063. Undertriage was consistently > 20% in patients with fall injury. Among patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, 50/93 (53.8%) did not initiate full-TTA with former, vs 39/79 (49.4%) with new criteria, p = 0.565. Age > 60-years was a risk factor for undertriage (OR 2.89, p < 0.001), while low fall injuries indicated a trend (OR 2.70, p = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: The newly implemented Swedish TTA criteria result in a reduction in limited TTA frequency, indicating an increased efficiency in use of resources. The over- and undertriage is unchanged compared to former criteria, thus upholding patient safety.

Better compliance with triage criteria in trauma would reduce costs with maintained patient safety.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trauma triage criteria in terms of compliance, undertriage, and overtriage and identify risk factors for mistriage. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, all consecutive trauma patients at a University Hospital in Sweden in 2012 were included. Patients were stratified into three groups on the basis of trauma team activation (full trauma team, limited trauma team, and no trauma team). Case records were reviewed for mechanism of injury, vital signs, and injuries. Compliance with alert criteria was evaluated and injury severity score combined with the Matrix method was used for assessment of overtriage and undertriage. RESULTS: A total of 1424 trauma patients were included in the study. Seventy-three (5.1%) patients activated a full trauma team, 732 (51.4%) a limited trauma team, and 619 (43.5%) did not activate any trauma team. Undertriage was 2.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.9-3.8%] and overtriage was 34.2% (95% CI: 23.5-46.3%) in the complete cohort. Compliance with 'trauma triage criteria' was assessed by comparing actual alerts with what was estimated to be the correct alert levels on the basis of prehospital case records. Compliance with full trauma team criteria was 80% (68-88%), limited trauma team was 54% (51-58%), and no trauma team was 79% (76-82%). Assuming full compliance with trauma criteria, the Matrix method resulted in an undertriage of 2.3% (95% CI: 1.6-3.3%) and an overtriage of 42.6% (95% CI: 32.4-53.2%). CONCLUSION: The overtriage and undertriage in this study is in line with the recommendations of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. However, better compliance with trauma alert criteria would result in fewer trauma team activations without affecting patient safety.