National guideline for the field triage of injured patients: Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2021

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.

Adult golf cart injuries: A rising hazard off the course

OBJECTIVE

Golf carts are increasingly being used as a means of transportation for travel in neighborhoods, city areas, and unpaved surfaces. The catchment area of our regional trauma center has seen an increase in golf cart use for transportation. In fact, Georgia has recently changed legislation to support the growing need for more defined laws around golf cart use. This study aims to further evaluate injury and outcome patterns in the adult population of northeast Georgia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of adult golf cart injured patients from 2018 to 2022. We evaluated key demographics, such as age and gender, along with the length of stay, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Outcomes included the injury type.

RESULTS

The results showed that orthopedic injuries were the most common (n = 24). Most patients were in the driver's seat (76%). Ejection from the golf cart was common (82%). Geriatric patients, 65 and older, had an increased length of stay compared to patients under the age of 65 (10 vs 3.9 days).

CONCLUSION

Based on these results, future work includes injury prevention, increased awareness of injury patterns in prehospital and hospital settings, and communities updating their ordinances.

PREHOSPITAL SHOCK INDEX MULTIPLIED BY AVPU SCALE AS A PREDICTOR OF CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN TRAUMATIC INJURY

Objectives: Many prehospital trauma triage scores have been proposed, but none has emerged as a criterion standard. Therefore, a rapid and accurate tool is necessary for field triage. The shock index (SI) multiplied by the AVPU (Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive) score (SIAVPU) reflected the hemodynamic and neurological conditions through a combination of the SI and AVPU. This study aimed to investigate the prediction performance of SI multiplied by the AVPU and to compare the prediction performance of other prehospital trauma triage scores in a population with traumatic injury. Patients and Methods: This study included 6,156 patients with trauma injury from the Taipei Tzu Chi trauma database. We investigated the accuracy of four scoring systems in predicting mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and prolonged hospital stay (defined as a duration of hospitalization >14 days). In the subgroup analysis, we also analyzed the effects of age, injury mechanism and severity, underlying diseases, and traumatic brain injury. Results: The predictive accuracy of SIAVPU for mortality, ICU admission, and prolonged hospital stay was significantly higher than that of SI, modified SI, and SI multiplied by age in the traumatic injury population, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.738 for mortality, 0.641 for ICU admission, and 0.606 for prolonged hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis, the prediction accuracy of mortality, ICU admission, and prolonged hospital stay of SIAVPU was also better in patients with younger age, older age, major trauma (Injury Severity Score ≥16), motor vehicle collisions, fall injury, healthy, cardiovascular disease, mixed traumatic brain injury, and isolated traumatic brain injury. The best cutoff levels of SIAVPU score to predict mortality, ICU admission, and total length of stay ≥14 days in trauma injury patients were 0.90, 0.82, and 0.80, with accuracies of 88.56%, 79.84%, and 78.62%, respectively. Conclusions: In conclusion, SIAVPU is a rapid and accurate field triage score with better prediction accuracy for mortality, ICU admission, and prolonged hospital stay than SI, modified SI, and SI multiplied by age in patients with trauma. Patients with SIAVPU ≥0.9 should be considered for the highest-level trauma center available within the geographic constraints of regional trauma systems.

Shock index, modified shock index, age shock index score, and reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale predicting clinical outcomes in traumatic brain injury: Evidence from a 10-year analysis in a single center

OBJECTIVES

Early identification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients at a high risk of mortality is very important. This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of four scoring systems in TBI, including shock index (SI), modified shock index (MSI), age-adjusted shock index (ASI), and reverse shock index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale (rSIG).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a registry from the Taipei Tzu Chi trauma database. Totally, 1,791 patients with TBI were included. We investigated the accuracy of four major shock indices for TBI mortality. In the subgroup analysis, we also analyzed the effects of age, injury mechanism, underlying diseases, TBI severity, and injury severity.

RESULTS

The predictive accuracy of rSIG was significantly higher than those of SI, MSI, and ASI in all the patients [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), 0.710 vs. 0.495 vs. 0.527 vs. 0.598], especially in the moderate/severe TBI (AUROC, 0.625 vs. 0.450 vs. 0.476 vs. 0.529) and isolated head injury populations (AUROC 0.689 vs. 0.472 vs. 0.504 vs. 0.587). In the subgroup analysis, the prediction accuracy of mortality of rSIG was better in TBI with major trauma [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16], motor vehicle collisions, fall injury, and healthy and cardiovascular disease population. rSIG also had a better prediction effect, as compared to SI, MSI, and ASI, both in the non-geriatric (age < 65 years) and geriatric (age ≥ 65 years).

CONCLUSION

rSIG had a better prediction accuracy for mortality in the overall TBI population than SI, MSI, and ASI. Although rSIG have better accuracy than other indices (ROC values indicate poor to moderate accuracy), the further clinical studies are necessary to validate our results.

Association of In-Hospital Mortality and Trauma Team Activation: A 10-Year Study

Background: Early trauma team activation (TTA) may improve clinical outcomes through early diagnosis and timely intervention by a dedicated multidisciplinary team. Controversy seems to exist about the effect of establishing trauma team systems in traumatic injury populations. Our aim was to identify factors that may be associated with clinical outcomes in trauma injury and to investigate the effect of trauma team activation. Method: This retrospective descriptive study included all traumatic patients from the Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital Trauma Database. All prehospital vital signs, management, injury type, injury mechanisms, hospitalization history, and clinical outcomes were analyzed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association between trauma team activation and clinical outcomes. Subgroups of TTA in minor injury and non-TTA in major injury were also analyzed. Result: In this study, a total of 11,946 patients were included, of which 10,831 (90.7%) patients were minor injury (ISS < 16), and 1115 (9.3%) patients were major injury (ISS ≥ 16). In the minor injury population, TTA had a higher intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, operation rate, re-operation rate, and prolonged total length of stay (LOS). In the major injury population, TTA had a higher mortality rate, prolonged total LOS, and prolonged ICU LOS. After adjusting for mechanism of injury and injury severity, there was no association between in-hospital mortality and TTA, compared with the non-TTA group. However, the TTA group had a higher risk of ICU admission, prolonged ICU LOS, and prolonged total LOS. The subgroup analysis showed trauma team activation had a higher risk of mortality in the 60- to 80-year-old population, major injury (ISS ≥ 16), consciousness clear population, and non-head injury group. Conclusions: We found there was no significant association between in-hospital mortality and TTA. However, in the TTA group, there was a higher risk of ICU admission, prolonged total, LOS, and prolonged ICU LOS. In the subgroup analysis, TTA had a higher risk of mortality in the 60- to 80-year-old population, major injury (ISS ≥ 16), consciousness clear population, and non-head injury group. Our results reflect TTA-criteria-selected patients with greater ISS and a high risk of mortality.