Field trauma triage criteria associated with need for dedicated trauma center care: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00722-3
Daniel Gold-Bersani, Ian R Drennan, Melissa McGowan, Rosane Nisenbaum, Brodie Nolan
{"title":"Field trauma triage criteria associated with need for dedicated trauma center care: a single-center retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Daniel Gold-Bersani, Ian R Drennan, Melissa McGowan, Rosane Nisenbaum, Brodie Nolan","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00722-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Direct transport from the scene of injury to a trauma centre reduces saves lives. In Ontario, paramedics use the field trauma triage standard (FTTS) to determine if a patient meets trauma bypass criteria. Recent studies have questioned the efficacy of the FTTS in identifying severely injured patients. The objective of this study was to determine the predictive performance of the FTTS on the need for trauma center care in patients who were transported to a trauma center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center health records study of patients transported by ambulance directly to a level 1 trauma center. Hospital based trauma center need and injury severity score-based need were defined. Bivariate associations with one or more FTTS criteria were tested using the Wilcoxon two-sample test for continuous variables, and the Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical indicators. The sensitivity and specificity of each category of the FTTS were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1427 patients included in the study, with 76% men, mean age of 40, and 76% had a blunt mechanism. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the FTTS was 90.9% and 20.8% for hospital-based need and 91.6% and 20.3 for injury severity need. The most sensitive variable for hospital-based need was physiologic criteria (53.7). Mechanism of injury was the most sensitive criteria for injury severity need (54.8). Physiological criteria had the highest association with hospital-based and injury severity need (adjusted odds ratios 7.5 [95% CI 5.8-9.8] and 5.1 [95% CI 3.9-6.7]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The FTTS has fair performance in identifying the need for hospital-based and injury severity need. Systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg, Glasgow Coma Scale (motor) less than 6, and falls greater than 6 m were most predictive of trauma center need. Improving prehospital trauma triage is critical to ensure timely transport to a trauma centre.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":"499-506"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00722-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Direct transport from the scene of injury to a trauma centre reduces saves lives. In Ontario, paramedics use the field trauma triage standard (FTTS) to determine if a patient meets trauma bypass criteria. Recent studies have questioned the efficacy of the FTTS in identifying severely injured patients. The objective of this study was to determine the predictive performance of the FTTS on the need for trauma center care in patients who were transported to a trauma center.

Methods: This was a single-center health records study of patients transported by ambulance directly to a level 1 trauma center. Hospital based trauma center need and injury severity score-based need were defined. Bivariate associations with one or more FTTS criteria were tested using the Wilcoxon two-sample test for continuous variables, and the Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical indicators. The sensitivity and specificity of each category of the FTTS were calculated.

Results: There were 1427 patients included in the study, with 76% men, mean age of 40, and 76% had a blunt mechanism. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the FTTS was 90.9% and 20.8% for hospital-based need and 91.6% and 20.3 for injury severity need. The most sensitive variable for hospital-based need was physiologic criteria (53.7). Mechanism of injury was the most sensitive criteria for injury severity need (54.8). Physiological criteria had the highest association with hospital-based and injury severity need (adjusted odds ratios 7.5 [95% CI 5.8-9.8] and 5.1 [95% CI 3.9-6.7]).

Conclusions: The FTTS has fair performance in identifying the need for hospital-based and injury severity need. Systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg, Glasgow Coma Scale (motor) less than 6, and falls greater than 6 m were most predictive of trauma center need. Improving prehospital trauma triage is critical to ensure timely transport to a trauma centre.

Abstract Image

与需要专设创伤中心护理相关的现场创伤分流标准:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。
导 言从受伤现场直接送往创伤中心可以挽救生命。在安大略省,护理人员使用现场创伤分流标准(FTTS)来确定患者是否符合创伤分流标准。最近的研究对 FTTS 在识别重伤患者方面的有效性提出了质疑。本研究的目的是确定 FTTS 对被送往创伤中心的患者是否需要接受创伤中心治疗的预测性能:这是一项单中心健康记录研究,研究对象是由救护车直接送往一级创伤中心的患者。定义了基于医院的创伤中心需求和基于受伤严重程度评分的需求。对于连续变量,使用Wilcoxon双样本检验,对于分类指标,使用Chi-square或Fisher's exact检验,检验与一个或多个FTTS标准的二元关联。计算了FTTS各分类指标的敏感性和特异性:研究共纳入了 1427 名患者,其中 76% 为男性,平均年龄为 40 岁,76% 的患者为钝性机制。FTTS的总体灵敏度和特异度分别为90.9%和20.8%(以医院为基础的需求)和91.6%和20.3%(受伤严重程度需求)。对医院需求最敏感的变量是生理标准(53.7)。损伤机制是对损伤严重程度需求最敏感的标准(54.8)。生理学标准与住院需求和受伤严重程度需求的关联度最高(调整后的几率比为 7.5 [95% CI 5.8-9.8] 和 5.1 [95% CI 3.9-6.7]):FTTS在识别住院需求和受伤严重程度需求方面表现尚可。收缩压小于 90 mmHg、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(motor)小于 6 和跌倒高度大于 6 米最能预测创伤中心的需求。改进院前创伤分诊对于确保及时送往创伤中心至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信