探索影响符合国家现场分诊指南标准的受伤患者分诊不足的患者和系统因素。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Jamison Beiriger, Jacob Puyana, Andrew-Paul Deeb, David Silver, Liling Lu, Sebastian Boland, Joshua B Brown
{"title":"探索影响符合国家现场分诊指南标准的受伤患者分诊不足的患者和系统因素。","authors":"Jamison Beiriger, Jacob Puyana, Andrew-Paul Deeb, David Silver, Liling Lu, Sebastian Boland, Joshua B Brown","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trauma systems save lives by coordinating timely and effective responses to injury. However, trauma system effectiveness varies geographically, with worse outcomes observed in rural settings. Prior data suggest that undertriage may play a role in this disparity. Our aim was to explore potential driving factors for decision making among clinicians for undertriaged trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Emergency Medical Services Information System database among patients who met physiologic or anatomic national field triage guideline criteria for transport to the highest level of trauma center. Undertriage was defined as transport to a non-level I/II trauma center. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine demographic, injury, and system characteristics associated with undertriage. Undertriaged patients were then categorized into \"recognized\" and \"unrecognized\" groups using the documented reason for transport destination to identify underlying factors associated with undertriage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36,094 patients were analyzed. Patients in urban areas were more likely to be transported to a destination based on protocol rather than the closest available facility. As expected, patients injured in urban regions were less likely to be undertriaged than their suburban (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.21-3.31), rural (aOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.28-3.21), and wilderness counterparts (aOR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.93-5.45). The strongest predictor of undertriage was patient/family choice (aOR, 6.29; 5.28-7.50), followed by closest facility (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 4.91-6.13) as the reason for hospital selection. Nonurban settings had over twice the odds of recognizing the presence of triage criteria among undertriaged patients (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with injuries in nonurban settings and those with less apparent causes of severe injury are more likely to experience undertriage. By analyzing how prehospital clinicians choose transport destinations, we identified patient and system factors associated with undertriage. Targeting these at-risk demographics and contributing factors may help alleviate regional disparities in undertriage.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic; Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring patient and system factors impacting undertriage of injured patients meeting national field triage guideline criteria.\",\"authors\":\"Jamison Beiriger, Jacob Puyana, Andrew-Paul Deeb, David Silver, Liling Lu, Sebastian Boland, Joshua B Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TA.0000000000004407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trauma systems save lives by coordinating timely and effective responses to injury. However, trauma system effectiveness varies geographically, with worse outcomes observed in rural settings. Prior data suggest that undertriage may play a role in this disparity. Our aim was to explore potential driving factors for decision making among clinicians for undertriaged trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Emergency Medical Services Information System database among patients who met physiologic or anatomic national field triage guideline criteria for transport to the highest level of trauma center. Undertriage was defined as transport to a non-level I/II trauma center. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine demographic, injury, and system characteristics associated with undertriage. Undertriaged patients were then categorized into \\\"recognized\\\" and \\\"unrecognized\\\" groups using the documented reason for transport destination to identify underlying factors associated with undertriage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36,094 patients were analyzed. Patients in urban areas were more likely to be transported to a destination based on protocol rather than the closest available facility. As expected, patients injured in urban regions were less likely to be undertriaged than their suburban (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.21-3.31), rural (aOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.28-3.21), and wilderness counterparts (aOR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.93-5.45). The strongest predictor of undertriage was patient/family choice (aOR, 6.29; 5.28-7.50), followed by closest facility (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 4.91-6.13) as the reason for hospital selection. Nonurban settings had over twice the odds of recognizing the presence of triage criteria among undertriaged patients (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with injuries in nonurban settings and those with less apparent causes of severe injury are more likely to experience undertriage. By analyzing how prehospital clinicians choose transport destinations, we identified patient and system factors associated with undertriage. Targeting these at-risk demographics and contributing factors may help alleviate regional disparities in undertriage.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic; Level IV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004407\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004407","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:创伤系统通过协调及时有效的救治措施挽救生命。然而,创伤系统的有效性因地域而异,在农村地区观察到的结果更差。先前的数据表明,误诊可能是造成这种差异的原因之一。我们的目的是探究临床医生对接诊不足的创伤患者做出决策的潜在驱动因素:我们对国家紧急医疗服务信息系统数据库中符合国家现场分诊指南中关于转运至最高级别创伤中心的生理或解剖标准的患者进行了回顾性分析。转运不足的定义是转运至非一级/二级创伤中心。多变量逻辑回归用于确定与分流不足相关的人口学、损伤和系统特征。然后根据记录的转运目的地原因,将转运不足的患者分为 "认可 "组和 "未认可 "组,以确定与转运不足相关的潜在因素:结果:共分析了 36,094 名患者。城市地区的患者更有可能根据协议被送往目的地,而不是最近的可用设施。不出所料,与郊区(调整后的几率比 [aOR],2.69;95% 置信区间 [95%CI],2.21-3.31)、农村(aOR,2.71;95% CI,2.28-3.21)和荒野(aOR,3.99;95% CI,2.93-5.45)的伤员相比,城市地区的伤员被误送的可能性较低。患者/家属选择医院是导致少婚的最主要原因(aOR,6.29;5.28-7.50),其次是选择最近的医院(aOR,5.49;95% CI,4.91-6.13)。结论:在非城市环境中,未分流患者识别分流标准存在的几率是在城市环境中的两倍多(P < 0.05):结论:在非城市环境中受伤的患者以及受伤原因不明显的重伤患者更有可能出现分流不足的情况。通过分析院前临床医生如何选择转运目的地,我们发现了与转运不足相关的患者和系统因素。针对这些高危人群和诱发因素可能有助于缓解地区性误诊差异:证据级别:诊断;IV 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring patient and system factors impacting undertriage of injured patients meeting national field triage guideline criteria.

Background: Trauma systems save lives by coordinating timely and effective responses to injury. However, trauma system effectiveness varies geographically, with worse outcomes observed in rural settings. Prior data suggest that undertriage may play a role in this disparity. Our aim was to explore potential driving factors for decision making among clinicians for undertriaged trauma patients.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Emergency Medical Services Information System database among patients who met physiologic or anatomic national field triage guideline criteria for transport to the highest level of trauma center. Undertriage was defined as transport to a non-level I/II trauma center. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine demographic, injury, and system characteristics associated with undertriage. Undertriaged patients were then categorized into "recognized" and "unrecognized" groups using the documented reason for transport destination to identify underlying factors associated with undertriage.

Results: A total of 36,094 patients were analyzed. Patients in urban areas were more likely to be transported to a destination based on protocol rather than the closest available facility. As expected, patients injured in urban regions were less likely to be undertriaged than their suburban (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.21-3.31), rural (aOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.28-3.21), and wilderness counterparts (aOR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.93-5.45). The strongest predictor of undertriage was patient/family choice (aOR, 6.29; 5.28-7.50), followed by closest facility (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 4.91-6.13) as the reason for hospital selection. Nonurban settings had over twice the odds of recognizing the presence of triage criteria among undertriaged patients (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Patients with injuries in nonurban settings and those with less apparent causes of severe injury are more likely to experience undertriage. By analyzing how prehospital clinicians choose transport destinations, we identified patient and system factors associated with undertriage. Targeting these at-risk demographics and contributing factors may help alleviate regional disparities in undertriage.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic; Level IV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
×
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