The role of emergency medical service providers in the decision-making process of prehospital trauma triage.

PURPOSE: Severely injured patients should be treated at higher-level trauma centres, to improve chances of survival and avert life-long disabilities. Emergency medical service (EMS) providers must try to determine injury severity on-scene, using a prehospital trauma triage protocol, and decide the most appropriate type of trauma centre. The objective of this study is to investigate the role of EMS provider judgment in the prehospital triage process of trauma patients, by analysing the compliance rate to the protocol and administering a questionnaire among EMS providers. METHODS: All trauma patients transported to a trauma centre in two different regions of the Netherlands were analysed. Compliance rate was based on the number of patients meeting the triage criteria and transported to the corresponding level trauma centre. The questionnaire was administered among EMS providers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: For adult patients, the compliance rate to the level I criteria of the triage protocol was 72% in Central Netherlands and 42% in Brabant. For paediatric patients, this was 63% and 38% in Central Netherlands and Brabant, respectively. The judgment on injury severity was mostly based on the injury-type criteria. Additionally, the distance to a level I trauma centre influenced the decision for destination facility in the Brabant region. CONCLUSION: The compliance rate varied between regions. Improvement of prehospital trauma triage depends on the accuracy of the protocol and compliance rate. A new protocol, including EMS provider judgment, might be the key to improvement in the prehospital trauma triage quality.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients.

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.

Identification of thoracic injuries by emergency medical services providers among trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Severe thoracic injuries are time sensitive and adequate triage to a facility with a high-level of trauma care is crucial. The emergency medical services (EMS) providers are required to identify patients with a severe thoracic injury to transport the patient to the right hospital. However, identifying these patients on-scene is difficult. The accuracy of prehospital assessment of potential thoracic injury by EMS providers of the ground ambulances is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the assessment of the EMS provider in the identification of a thoracic injury and determine predictors of a severe thoracic injury. METHODS: In this multicentre cohort study, all trauma patients aged 16 and over, transported with a ground erence standard. Prehospital variables were analysed using logistic regression to explore prehospital ambulance to a trauma centre, were evaluated. The diagnostic value of EMS provider judgment was determined using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of ≥ 1 in the thoracic region as ref predictors of a severe thoracic injury (AIS ≥ 3). RESULTS: In total 2766 patients were included, of whom 465 (16.8%) sustained a thoracic injury and 210 (7.6%) a severe thoracic injury. The EMS providers' judgment had a sensitivity of 54.8% and a specificity of 92.6% for the identification of a thoracic injury. Significant independent prehospital predictors were: age, oxygen saturation, Glasgow Coma Scale, fall > 2 m, and suspicion of inhalation trauma or a thoracic injury by the EMS provider. CONCLUSION: EMS providers could identify little over half of the patients with a thoracic injury. A supplementary triage protocol to identify patients with a thoracic injury could improve prehospital triage of these patients. In this supplementary protocol, age, vital signs, and mechanism criteria could be included.

Effectiveness of prehospital trauma triage systems in selecting severely injured patients: Is comparative analysis possible?

INTRODUCTION: In an optimal trauma system, prehospital trauma triage ensures transport of the right patient to the right hospital. Incorrect triage results in undertriage and overtriage. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare prehospital trauma triage system quality worldwide and determine effectiveness in terms of undertriage and overtriage for trauma patients. METHODS: A systematic search of Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed, using "trauma", "trauma center," or "trauma system", combined with "triage", "undertriage," or "overtriage", as search terms. All studies describing ground transport and actual destination hospital of patients with and without severe injuries, using prehospital triage, published before November 2017, were eligible for inclusion. To assess the quality of these studies, a critical appraisal tool was developed. RESULTS: A total of 33 articles were included. The percentage of undertriage ranged from 1% to 68%; overtriage from 5% to 99%. Older age and increased geographical distance were associated with undertriage. Mortality was lower for severely injured patients transferred to a higher-level trauma center. The majority of the included studies were of poor methodological quality. The studies of good quality showed poor performance of the triage protocol, but additional value of EMS provider judgment in the identification of severely injured patients. CONCLUSION: In most of the evaluated trauma systems, a substantial part of the severely injured patients is not transported to the appropriate level trauma center. Future research should come up with new innovative ways to improve the quality of prehospital triage in trauma patients.

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.

Fast assessment and management of chest pain without ST-elevation in the pre-hospital gateway: rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: For chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation in the pre-hospital setting, current clinical guidelines merely offer in-hospital risk stratification and management, as opposed to chest pain patients with ST-segment elevation for whom there is a straightforward pre-hospital strategy for diagnosis, medication regimen and logistics. The FAMOUS TRIAGE study will assess the effects of introducing a pre-hospital triage system that reliably stratifies chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation into 1) patients at high risk for NSTEMI requiring a direct transfer to a PCI-hospital; 2) patients at intermediate risk for a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) who could be evaluated at the nearest non-PCI hospital; and 3) patients at low risk for MACE (benign non-cardiac chest pain) who could have further evaluation at home or in a primary care setting. METHODS: The FAMOUS TRIAGE study will be performed in three phases. In the first phase an appropriate pre-hospital risk stratification tool will be designed for chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation by means of a retrospective and a prospective study. The second phase of the project represents the external validation of the risk stratification models, and in the third and final phase an optimal risk stratification tool will be implemented into clinical practice. Clinical and economical endpoints before and after implementation of the pre-hospital risk stratification tool will be compared to assess clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The FAMOUS TRIAGE project is a triple phase study that aims to optimize the pre-hospital management of chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation by providing tools for pre-hospital identification of NSTEMI or exclusion of acute coronary syndrome at home. TRIAL ID: NTR4205. Dutch Trial Register [http://www.trialregister.nl]: trial number 4205.

Factors influencing ambulance nurses' adherence to a national protocol ambulance care: an implementation study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Adherence to prehospital guidelines and protocols is suboptimal. Insight into influencing factors is necessary to improve adherence. The aim of this study was to identify factors that influence ambulance nurses' adherence to a National Protocol Ambulance Care (NPAC). METHODS: A questionnaire was developed using the literature, a questionnaire and expert opinion. Ambulance nurses (n=452) from four geographically spread emergency medical services (EMSs) in the Netherlands were invited to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on influencing factors and self-reported adherence. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 248 (55%) of the ambulance nurses. These ambulance nurses' adherence to the NPAC was 83.4% (95% confidence interval 81.9-85.0). Bivariate correlations showed 23 influencing factors that could be related to the individual professional, organization, protocol characteristics and social context. Multilevel regression analysis showed that 21% of the variation in adherence (R=0.208) was explained by protocol characteristics and social influences. CONCLUSION: Ambulance nurses' self-reported adherence to the NPAC seems high. To improve adherence, protocol characteristics (complexity, the degree of support for diagnosis and treatment, the relationship of the protocol with patient outcomes) and social influences (expectance of colleagues to work with the national protocol) should be addressed.

Individual and population burdens of major trauma in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of major trauma on individual and population health. METHODS: Data from a regional trauma registry were used, including all trauma fatalities and nonfatal severely injured patients (injury severity score >15) in 1999 and 2000. The impact of fatalities was expressed in terms of years of life lost (YLL). The impact of severe injury on survivors was expressed in terms of years lived with disability (YLD). Disability weights were based on quality of life at 15 months after injury, measured with EuroQol-5D. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were calculated as the sum of YLLs and YLDs. FINDINGS: There were 567 fatalities and 335 survivors. At the individual level, trauma fatalities (32 YLLs per patient) and nonfatal cases of major trauma (12 YLDs per patient) both led to a substantial loss of healthy life years. Each victim of major trauma contributed an average of 25 DALYs to the burden of disease. At the population level, major trauma caused 10 DALYs per 1000 inhabitants. Road-traffic injury was the main contributor to the population burden of major trauma. CONCLUSION: Both at individual and population levels, major trauma has a massive impact on health. Most severely injured victims of road-traffic crashes reach the hospital and have good chances of survival. Injury prevention and trauma care policies should aim at further reduction of both fatalities and permanent consequences among survivors.

Predictors of Death in Trauma Patients who are Alive on Arrival at Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors predict death occurring in trauma patients who are alive on arrival at hospital Design Prospective cohort study Method Data were collected from 507 trauma patients with multiple injuries, with a Hospital Trauma Index-Injury Severity Score of 16 or more, who were initially delivered by the Emergency Medical Services to the Emergency Department of the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU) during the period 1999-2000. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that every year of age increase resulted in a 2% greater risk of death. If the patient had been intubated at the scene of the accident, this risk was increased 4.3-fold. Every point of increase in the Triage Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS) reduced the risk of death by 30%. A similar (but inverse) tendency was found for the HTI-ISS score, with every point of increase resulting in a 5% greater risk of death. There was a clear relationship between the base excess (BE) and hemoglobin (Hb) levels and the risk of death, the latter being increased by 8% for each mmol/l drop in BE, and reduced by 22% for each mmol/l increase in Hb. The risk of death occurring was 2.6 times higher in cases with isolated neurotrauma. These associations hardly changed in the multivariate analysis; only the relation with having been intubated at the scene disappeared. CONCLUSION: The risk of severely injured accident patients dying after arriving in hospital is mainly determined by the T-RTS, age, presence of isolated neurological damage, BE and Hb level. Skull/brain damage and hemorrhage appear to be the most important causes of death in the first 24 h after the accident. The time interval between the accident and arrival at the hospital does not appear to affect the risk of death.

Erratum to Predictors of Death in Trauma Patients who are Alive on Arrival at Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors predict death occurring in trauma patients who are alive on arrival at hospital Design Prospective cohort study Method Data were collected from 507 trauma patients with multiple injuries, with a Hospital Trauma Index-Injury Severity Score of 16 or more, who were initially delivered by the Emergency Medical Services to the Emergency Department of the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU) during the period 1999-2000. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that every year of age increase resulted in a 2% greater risk of death. If the patient had been intubated at the scene of the accident, this risk was increased 4.3-fold. Every point of increase in the Triage Revised Trauma Score (T-RTS) reduced the risk of death by 30%. A similar (but inverse) tendency was found for the HTI-ISS score, with every point of increase resulting in a 5% greater risk of death. There was a clear relationship between the base excess (BE) and hemoglobin (Hb) levels and the risk of death, the latter being increased by 8% for each mmol/l drop in BE, and reduced by 22% for each mmol/l increase in Hb. The risk of death occurring was 2.6 times higher in cases with isolated neurotrauma. These associations hardly changed in the multivariate analysis; only the relation with having been intubated at the scene disappeared. CONCLUSION: The risk of severely injured accident patients dying after arriving in hospital is mainly determined by the T-RTS, age, presence of isolated neurological damage, BE and Hb level. Skull/brain damage and hemorrhage appear to be the most important causes of death in the first 24 h after the accident. The time interval between the accident and arrival at the hospital does not appear to affect the risk of death.