Avoiding Cribari gridlock 2: The standardized triage assessment tool outperforms the Cribari matrix method in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: The Cribari Matrix Method (CMM) is the current standard to identify over/undertriage but requires manual trauma triage reviews to address its inadequacies. The Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT) partially emulates triage review by combining CMM with the Need For Trauma Intervention, an indicator of major trauma. This study aimed to validate STAT in a multicenter sample. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult and pediatric US trauma centers submitted data for 97,282 encounters. Mixed models estimated the effects of overtriage and undertriage versus appropriate triage on the odds of complication, odds of discharge to a continuing care facility, and differences in length of stay for both CMM and STAT. Significance was assessed at p <0.005. RESULTS: Overtriage (53.49% vs. 30.79%) and undertriage (17.19% vs. 3.55%) rates were notably lower with STAT than with CMM. CMM and STAT had significant associations with all outcomes, with overtriages demonstrating lower injury burdens and undertriages showing higher injury burdens than appropriately triaged patients. STAT indicated significantly stronger associations with outcomes than CMM, except in odds of discharge to continuing care facility among patients who received a full trauma team activation where STAT and CMM were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study strongly indicates STAT safely and accurately flags fewer cases for triage reviews, thereby reducing the subjectivity introduced by manual triage determinations. This may enable better refinement of activation criteria and reduced workload.

Rethinking the definition of major trauma: The need for trauma intervention outperforms Injury Severity Score and Revised Trauma Score in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Patients' trauma burdens are a combination of anatomic damage, physiologic derangement, and the resultant depletion of reserve. Typically, Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 defines major anatomic injury and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) <7.84 defines major physiologic derangement, but there is no standard definition for reserve. The Need For Trauma Intervention (NFTI) identifies severely depleted reserves (NFTI+) with emergent interventions and/or early mortality. We hypothesized NFTI would have stronger associations with outcomes and better model fit than ISS and RTS. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult and pediatric U.S. trauma centers submitted data for 88,488 encounters. Mixed models tested ISS greater than 15, RTS less than 7.84, and NFTI's associations with complications, survivors' discharge to continuing care, and survivors' length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: The NFTI had stronger associations with complications and LOS than ISS and RTS (odds ratios [99.5% confidence interval]: NFTI = 9.44 [8.46-10.53]; ISS = 5.94 [5.36-6.60], RTS = 4.79 [4.29-5.34]; LOS incidence rate ratios (99.5% confidence interval): NFTI = 3.15 [3.08-3.22], ISS = 2.87 [2.80-2.94], RTS = 2.37 [2.30-2.45]). NFTI was more strongly associated with continuing care discharge but not significantly more than ISS (relative risk [99.5% confidence interval]: NFTI = 2.59 [2.52-2.66], ISS = 2.51 [2.44-2.59], RTS = 2.37 [2.28-2.46]). Cross-validation revealed that in all cases NFTI's model provided a much better fit than ISS greater than 15 or RTS less than 7.84. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study, NFTI had better model fit and stronger associations with the outcomes than ISS and RTS. By determining depletion of reserve via resource consumption, NFTI+ may be a better definition of major trauma than the standard definitions of ISS greater than 15 and RTS less than 7.84. Using NFTI may improve retrospective triage monitoring and statistical risk adjustments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level IV.

Avoiding Cribari gridlock: The standardized triage assessment tool improves the accuracy of the Cribari matrix method in identifying potential overtriage and undertriage.

BACKGROUND: The Cribari matrix method (CMM) is the standard to identify potential overtriage and undertriage but requires case reviews to correct for the fact that Injury Severity Score does not account for physiology or comorbidities, nor is it well correlated with resource consumption. Further, the secondary reviews introduce undesirable subjectivity. This study assessed if the Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT)-a combination of the CMM and the Need For Trauma Intervention-could more accurately determine overtriage and undertriage than the CMM alone. METHODS: The registry of an American College of Surgeons verified Level I adult trauma center in Texas was queried for all new emergency department traumas 2013 to 2016 (n = 11,110). Binary logistic regressions were used to test the associations between the triage determinations of each metric against indicators of injury severity (risk factors, complications, and mortality) and resource consumption (number of procedures in 3 days and total length of stay). RESULTS: Both metrics were associated with the indicators of injury severity and resource consumption in the expected directions, but STAT had stronger or equivalent associations with all variables tested. Using the CMM, there was 50.4% overtriage and 9.1% undertriage. Using STAT, overtriage was reduced to 30.8% (relative reduction = 38.9%) and undertriage was reduced to 3.3% (relative reduction = 63.7%). CONCLUSION: Using the CMM with secondary case reviews makes valid multi-institutional triage rate comparisons impossible because of the subjective and unstandardized nature of these reviews. STAT's out-of-box triage determinations (i.e., without manual case review) outperformed CMM in almost every tested variable for both over- and undertriage. STAT, an automatic, standardized method offers significant improvements compared to the current subjective system. Further, by accounting for both anatomic injury severity and resource consumption, STAT may allow trauma centers to better allocate resources and predict patient needs with fewer cases requiring manual review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.

Asking a Better Question: Development and Evaluation of the Need For Trauma Intervention (NFTI) Metric as a Novel Indicator of Major Trauma.

Many existing metrics, such as Injury Severity Score (ISS), cannot fully describe many trauma patients because of comorbidities. This study developed and evaluated the Need For Trauma Intervention (NFTI) metric as a novel indicator of major trauma. The NFTI metric was developed from an analysis of 2,396 trauma patients at a Level I trauma center. Six commonly recorded registry variables were found to be indicative of major trauma and comprised the NFTI criteria: receiving packed red blood cells within 4 hr; discharge from the emergency department (ED) to the operating room within 90 min; discharge from the ED to interventional radiology; discharge from the ED to the intensive care unit (ICU) with an ICU length of stay (LOS) of 3 or more days; mechanical ventilation outside of procedural anesthesia within 3 days; or death within 60 hr. Patients meeting any NFTI criteria are classified as having major traumas and, therefore, needing trauma activations (NFTI+). Need For Trauma Intervention was tested in an overlapping sample of 9,737 patients. Being NFTI+ was associated with higher trauma activation levels, older age, higher ISS, worse ED vitals, longer hospital LOS, and mortality. Only 13 of 561 deaths were not NFTI+ and all were in patients with do not resuscitate (DNR) orders; using ISS greater than 15 missed 73 mortalities, 46 with DNR orders. Results suggest that NFTI provides a comprehensive view of both anatomy and physiology in a manner that self-adjusts for age, frailty, and comorbidities as long as care teams adjust their treatments. Need For Trauma Intervention appears to be a unique, simple, and effective tool to retrospectively identify major trauma, regardless of ISS.

Improving National Trauma Data Bank® coding data reliability for traumatic injury using a prospective systems approach.

Trauma centers manage an active Trauma Registry from which research, quality improvement, and epidemiologic information are extracted to ensure optimal care of the trauma patient. We evaluated coding procedures using the Relational Trauma Scoring System™ to determine the relative accuracy of the Relational Trauma Scoring System for coding diagnoses in comparison to the standard retrospective chart-based format. Charts from 150 patients admitted to a level I trauma service were abstracted using standard methods. These charts were then randomized and abstracted by trauma nurse clinicians with coding software aide. For charts scored pre-training, percent correct for the trauma nurse clinicians ranged from 52 to 64 percent, while the registrars scored 51 percent correct. After training, percentage correct for the trauma nurse clinicians increased to a range of 80-86 percent. Our research has demonstrated implementable changes that can significantly increase the accuracy of data from trauma centers.