院前创伤小组激活方案的过度分诊率评估

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-08 DOI:10.1007/s43678-025-00885-7
Kevin Durr, Krishan Yadav, Michael Ho, Jacinthe Lampron, Alexandre Tran, Doran Drew, Andrew Petrosoniak, Christian Vaillancourt, Natalia Kruger, Derek Goltz, Marie-Joe Nemnom, Jeffrey J Perry
{"title":"院前创伤小组激活方案的过度分诊率评估","authors":"Kevin Durr, Krishan Yadav, Michael Ho, Jacinthe Lampron, Alexandre Tran, Doran Drew, Andrew Petrosoniak, Christian Vaillancourt, Natalia Kruger, Derek Goltz, Marie-Joe Nemnom, Jeffrey J Perry","doi":"10.1007/s43678-025-00885-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prehospital trauma team activation protocols are increasingly used to expedite clinical care and potentially improve patient outcomes. However, there is little evidence describing the rates of overtriaging following prehospital activation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In June 2018, prehospital trauma team activation protocols were implemented at the Ottawa Hospital. We conducted a health records review of all adult trauma team activations at this Lead Trauma Hospital from September 2016 to March 2020. Cases were prospectively recorded in the regional trauma registry. Pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts were divided based on the implementation date of the local activation protocols. Overtriaging rates were compared between both groups. We defined overtriaging as activating the trauma team without any of the following: death, ≥ 48-h admission, intensive care unit admission, operative management, or an injury severity score ≥ 16. We present descriptive statistics with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to describe the rates of overtriaging.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 762 trauma team activations with 384 in the pre-implementation group and 378 in the post-implementation group. The frequency of prehospital trauma team activation was 25.3% (N = 97) in the pre-implementation period, compared to 47.6% (N = 180) in the post-implementation period. There was no statistically significant increase in overtriaging when comparing the pre-implementation (N = 64, 16.7%) and post-implementation (N = 68, 18.0%) groups (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.75, 1.60). Furthermore, the rate of overtriaging for each individual criterion of the local protocol adhered to guideline recommendations (< 25-35%). Lastly, in the post-implementation period, there was no significant difference in overtriaging with prehospital (N = 30, 16.7%) compared to in-hospital (N = 38, 19.2%) trauma team activation (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.50, 1.43).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrates that the local prehospital trauma team activation protocol did not result in a statistically significant rise in overtriaging. These findings demonstrate that implementing center-specific prehospital trauma team activation protocols did not increase overtriaging rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":"390-394"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the rates of overtriaging with prehospital trauma team activation protocols.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Durr, Krishan Yadav, Michael Ho, Jacinthe Lampron, Alexandre Tran, Doran Drew, Andrew Petrosoniak, Christian Vaillancourt, Natalia Kruger, Derek Goltz, Marie-Joe Nemnom, Jeffrey J Perry\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-025-00885-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prehospital trauma team activation protocols are increasingly used to expedite clinical care and potentially improve patient outcomes. However, there is little evidence describing the rates of overtriaging following prehospital activation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In June 2018, prehospital trauma team activation protocols were implemented at the Ottawa Hospital. We conducted a health records review of all adult trauma team activations at this Lead Trauma Hospital from September 2016 to March 2020. Cases were prospectively recorded in the regional trauma registry. Pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts were divided based on the implementation date of the local activation protocols. Overtriaging rates were compared between both groups. We defined overtriaging as activating the trauma team without any of the following: death, ≥ 48-h admission, intensive care unit admission, operative management, or an injury severity score ≥ 16. We present descriptive statistics with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to describe the rates of overtriaging.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 762 trauma team activations with 384 in the pre-implementation group and 378 in the post-implementation group. The frequency of prehospital trauma team activation was 25.3% (N = 97) in the pre-implementation period, compared to 47.6% (N = 180) in the post-implementation period. There was no statistically significant increase in overtriaging when comparing the pre-implementation (N = 64, 16.7%) and post-implementation (N = 68, 18.0%) groups (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.75, 1.60). Furthermore, the rate of overtriaging for each individual criterion of the local protocol adhered to guideline recommendations (< 25-35%). Lastly, in the post-implementation period, there was no significant difference in overtriaging with prehospital (N = 30, 16.7%) compared to in-hospital (N = 38, 19.2%) trauma team activation (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.50, 1.43).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrates that the local prehospital trauma team activation protocol did not result in a statistically significant rise in overtriaging. These findings demonstrate that implementing center-specific prehospital trauma team activation protocols did not increase overtriaging rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJEM\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"390-394\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"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/s43678-025-00885-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00885-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

院前创伤小组激活协议越来越多地用于加快临床护理和潜在地改善患者的预后。然而,很少有证据描述院前激活后的过度分诊率。方法:2018年6月,在渥太华医院实施院前创伤小组激活方案。我们对2016年9月至2020年3月在这家创伤医院的所有成人创伤小组进行了健康记录审查。病例被前瞻性地记录在区域创伤登记处。根据局部激活协议的实施日期划分实施前和实施后队列。比较两组的过度分诊率。我们将过度分类定义为在没有以下任何情况下激活创伤小组:死亡、≥48小时入院、重症监护病房入院、手术管理或损伤严重程度评分≥16。我们采用比值比和95%置信区间的描述性统计来描述过度分诊率。结果:我们分析了762例创伤组激活,其中实施前组384例,实施后组378例。院前创伤团队激活频率在实施前为25.3% (N = 97),而在实施后为47.6% (N = 180)。与实施前组(N = 64, 16.7%)和实施后组(N = 68, 18.0%)相比,过度分流的发生率无统计学意义增加(OR 1.10;95% ci 0.75, 1.60)。此外,当地方案的每个单独标准的过度分诊率遵循指南建议(结论:我们的研究表明,当地院前创伤小组激活方案并没有导致过度分诊率的统计学显著上升。这些发现表明,实施中心特定的院前创伤小组激活方案不会增加过度分诊率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the rates of overtriaging with prehospital trauma team activation protocols.

Introduction: Prehospital trauma team activation protocols are increasingly used to expedite clinical care and potentially improve patient outcomes. However, there is little evidence describing the rates of overtriaging following prehospital activation.

Methods: In June 2018, prehospital trauma team activation protocols were implemented at the Ottawa Hospital. We conducted a health records review of all adult trauma team activations at this Lead Trauma Hospital from September 2016 to March 2020. Cases were prospectively recorded in the regional trauma registry. Pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts were divided based on the implementation date of the local activation protocols. Overtriaging rates were compared between both groups. We defined overtriaging as activating the trauma team without any of the following: death, ≥ 48-h admission, intensive care unit admission, operative management, or an injury severity score ≥ 16. We present descriptive statistics with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to describe the rates of overtriaging.

Results: We analyzed 762 trauma team activations with 384 in the pre-implementation group and 378 in the post-implementation group. The frequency of prehospital trauma team activation was 25.3% (N = 97) in the pre-implementation period, compared to 47.6% (N = 180) in the post-implementation period. There was no statistically significant increase in overtriaging when comparing the pre-implementation (N = 64, 16.7%) and post-implementation (N = 68, 18.0%) groups (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.75, 1.60). Furthermore, the rate of overtriaging for each individual criterion of the local protocol adhered to guideline recommendations (< 25-35%). Lastly, in the post-implementation period, there was no significant difference in overtriaging with prehospital (N = 30, 16.7%) compared to in-hospital (N = 38, 19.2%) trauma team activation (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.50, 1.43).

Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the local prehospital trauma team activation protocol did not result in a statistically significant rise in overtriaging. These findings demonstrate that implementing center-specific prehospital trauma team activation protocols did not increase overtriaging rates.

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
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