Calculating trauma triage precision: effects of different definitions of major trauma.

Hans Morten Lossius, Marius Rehn, Kjell E Tjosevik, Torsten Eken
{"title":"Calculating trauma triage precision: effects of different definitions of major trauma.","authors":"Hans Morten Lossius, Marius Rehn, Kjell E Tjosevik, Torsten Eken","doi":"10.1186/1752-2897-6-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Triage is the process of classifying patients according to injury severity and determining the priority for further treatment. Although the term \"major trauma\" represents the reference against which over- and undertriage rates are calculated, its definition is inconsistent in the current literature. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different definitions of major trauma on the calculation of perceived over- and undertriage rates in a Norwegian trauma cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective analysis of patients included in the trauma registry of a primary, referral trauma centre. Two \"traditional\" definitions were developed based on anatomical injury severity scores (ISS >15 and NISS >15), one \"extended\" definition was based on outcome (30-day mortality) and mechanism of injury (proximal penetrating injury), one \"extensive\" definition was based on the \"extended\" definition and on ICU resource consumption (admitted to the ICU for >2 days and/or transferred intubated out of the hospital in ≤2 days), and an additional four definitions were based on combinations of the first four.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in the perceived under- and overtriage rates between the two \"traditional\" definitions (NISS >15 and ISS >15). Adding \"extended\" and \"extensive\" to the \"traditional\" definitions also did not significantly alter perceived under- and overtriage. Defining major trauma only in terms of the mechanism of injury and mortality, with or without ICU resource consumption (the \"extended\" and \"extensive\" groups), drastically increased the perceived overtriage rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the proportion of patients who were defined as having sustained major trauma increased when NISS-based definitions were substituted for ISS-based definitions, the outcomes of the triage precision calculations did not differ significantly between the two scales. Additionally, expanding the purely anatomic definition of major trauma by including proximal penetrating injury, 30-day mortality, ICU LOS greater than 2 days and transferred intubated out of the hospital at ≤2 days did not significantly influence the perceived triage precision. We recommend that triage precision calculations should include anatomical injury scaling according to NISS. To further enhance comparability of trauma triage calculations, researchers should establish a consensus on a uniform definition of major trauma.</p>","PeriodicalId":87652,"journal":{"name":"Journal of trauma management & outcomes","volume":"6 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464123/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of trauma management & outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-2897-6-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Triage is the process of classifying patients according to injury severity and determining the priority for further treatment. Although the term "major trauma" represents the reference against which over- and undertriage rates are calculated, its definition is inconsistent in the current literature. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different definitions of major trauma on the calculation of perceived over- and undertriage rates in a Norwegian trauma cohort.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients included in the trauma registry of a primary, referral trauma centre. Two "traditional" definitions were developed based on anatomical injury severity scores (ISS >15 and NISS >15), one "extended" definition was based on outcome (30-day mortality) and mechanism of injury (proximal penetrating injury), one "extensive" definition was based on the "extended" definition and on ICU resource consumption (admitted to the ICU for >2 days and/or transferred intubated out of the hospital in ≤2 days), and an additional four definitions were based on combinations of the first four.

Results: There were no significant differences in the perceived under- and overtriage rates between the two "traditional" definitions (NISS >15 and ISS >15). Adding "extended" and "extensive" to the "traditional" definitions also did not significantly alter perceived under- and overtriage. Defining major trauma only in terms of the mechanism of injury and mortality, with or without ICU resource consumption (the "extended" and "extensive" groups), drastically increased the perceived overtriage rates.

Conclusion: Although the proportion of patients who were defined as having sustained major trauma increased when NISS-based definitions were substituted for ISS-based definitions, the outcomes of the triage precision calculations did not differ significantly between the two scales. Additionally, expanding the purely anatomic definition of major trauma by including proximal penetrating injury, 30-day mortality, ICU LOS greater than 2 days and transferred intubated out of the hospital at ≤2 days did not significantly influence the perceived triage precision. We recommend that triage precision calculations should include anatomical injury scaling according to NISS. To further enhance comparability of trauma triage calculations, researchers should establish a consensus on a uniform definition of major trauma.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

计算创伤分流精确度:不同重大创伤定义的影响。
背景:分诊是根据受伤严重程度对患者进行分类并确定进一步治疗的优先次序的过程。虽然 "重大创伤 "一词是计算过度和不足率的参照,但在目前的文献中,其定义并不一致。本研究旨在调查重大创伤的不同定义对计算挪威创伤队列中感知的过度和不足率的影响:我们对一家初级转诊创伤中心的创伤登记册中的患者进行了回顾性分析。两个 "传统 "定义基于解剖学损伤严重程度评分(ISS >15和NISS >15),一个 "扩展 "定义基于结果(30天死亡率)和损伤机制(近端穿透性损伤),一个 "广泛 "定义基于 "扩展 "定义和重症监护室资源消耗(入住重症监护室2天以上和/或转院插管2天以下),另外四个定义基于前四个定义的组合:结果:两种 "传统 "定义(NISS>15 和 ISS>15)之间的过低和过高误诊率没有明显差异。在 "传统 "定义的基础上增加 "扩大 "和 "广泛 "也不会明显改变认为的误诊率和漏诊率。仅从受伤机制和死亡率的角度定义重大创伤,无论是否消耗重症监护室资源("扩展 "组和 "广泛 "组),都会大幅提高过度诊断率:结论:虽然用基于 NISS 的定义取代基于 ISS 的定义后,被定义为遭受重大创伤的患者比例有所增加,但两种量表的分诊精确度计算结果并无显著差异。此外,通过将近端穿透性损伤、30 天死亡率、ICU LOS 超过 2 天和转院插管时间≤2 天等因素纳入重大创伤的纯解剖学定义,也不会对感知的分诊精确度产生重大影响。我们建议,分诊精确度计算应包括根据 NISS 进行的解剖损伤比例调整。为进一步提高创伤分诊计算的可比性,研究人员应就重大创伤的统一定义达成共识。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书