Effectiveness of a two-tiered trauma team activation system at a level I trauma center.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Jamela Abu-Aiada, Elchanan Quint, Daniel Dykman, David Czeiger, Gad Shaked
{"title":"Effectiveness of a two-tiered trauma team activation system at a level I trauma center.","authors":"Jamela Abu-Aiada, Elchanan Quint, Daniel Dykman, David Czeiger, Gad Shaked","doi":"10.1007/s00068-024-02644-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Many trauma patients who are transported to our level I trauma center have minor injuries that do not require full trauma team activation (FTTA). Thus, we implemented a two-tiered TTA system categorizing patients into red and yellow code alerts, indicating FTTA and Limited TTA (LTTA) requirements, respectively. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this triage tool by evaluating its diagnostic parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), undertriage and overtriage) and comparing injury severity between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a Level I trauma center. Characteristics compared between the red and yellow code groups included demographics, injury severity, treatments, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Calculating the diagnostic parameters was based on Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the need for life-saving surgery or procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences in injury severity indicators were observed between the two groups. Patients in the red code group had a higher ISS and New Injury Severity Score (NISS), a lower Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and probability of survival. They had a longer hospital LOS, a higher Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rate and required more emergency operations. The Sensitivity of the triage tool was 85.2%, specificity was 55.6%, PPV was 74.2%, NPV was 71.5%, undertriage was 14.7%, and overtriage was 25.7%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two-tiered TTA system effectively distinguish between patients with major trauma who need FTTA and patients with minor trauma who can be managed by LTTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2265-2272"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02644-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Many trauma patients who are transported to our level I trauma center have minor injuries that do not require full trauma team activation (FTTA). Thus, we implemented a two-tiered TTA system categorizing patients into red and yellow code alerts, indicating FTTA and Limited TTA (LTTA) requirements, respectively. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this triage tool by evaluating its diagnostic parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), undertriage and overtriage) and comparing injury severity between the two groups.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a Level I trauma center. Characteristics compared between the red and yellow code groups included demographics, injury severity, treatments, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Calculating the diagnostic parameters was based on Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the need for life-saving surgery or procedures.

Results: Significant differences in injury severity indicators were observed between the two groups. Patients in the red code group had a higher ISS and New Injury Severity Score (NISS), a lower Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and probability of survival. They had a longer hospital LOS, a higher Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rate and required more emergency operations. The Sensitivity of the triage tool was 85.2%, specificity was 55.6%, PPV was 74.2%, NPV was 71.5%, undertriage was 14.7%, and overtriage was 25.7%.

Conclusion: The two-tiered TTA system effectively distinguish between patients with major trauma who need FTTA and patients with minor trauma who can be managed by LTTA.

一级创伤中心两级创伤团队激活系统的有效性。
目的:许多被送往一级创伤中心的创伤患者伤势较轻,不需要全面启动创伤团队(FTTA)。因此,我们实施了两级 TTA 系统,将患者分为红色和黄色代码警报,分别表示 FTTA 和有限 TTA(LTTA)要求。本研究旨在通过评估该分流工具的诊断参数(灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)、低分流和高分流)以及比较两组患者的损伤严重程度来评估其有效性:方法:对一级创伤中心收治的患者进行回顾性队列研究。红色代码组和黄色代码组之间比较的特征包括人口统计学、受伤严重程度、治疗和住院时间(LOS)。诊断参数的计算基于损伤严重程度评分(ISS)和救生手术或程序的需求:结果:两组患者的损伤严重程度指标存在显著差异。红色代码组患者的损伤严重程度评分(ISS)和新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)较高,格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)、修订创伤评分(RTS)和存活概率较低。他们的住院时间更长,入住重症监护室(ICU)的比例更高,需要进行的急诊手术也更多。分诊工具的灵敏度为 85.2%,特异度为 55.6%,PPV 为 74.2%,NPV 为 71.5%,低分诊率为 14.7%,高分诊率为 25.7%:结论:两级 TTA 系统能有效区分需要 FTTA 的重大创伤患者和可接受 LTTA 的轻微创伤患者。
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
311
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries. Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.
×
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