Making the call in the field: Validating emergency medical services identification of anatomic trauma triage criteria. Issue 6 (June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Deeb, Andrew-Paul; Phelos, Heather M.; Peitzman, Andrew B.; Billiar, Timothy R.; Sperry, Jason L.; Brown, Joshua B.
• Is Part Of: Journal of trauma and acute care surgery. Volume 90:Issue 6(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-06
• Subjects: Triage -- field -- emergency medical services -- prehospital -- anatomic criteria; Surgical intensive care -- Periodicals; Surgical emergencies -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.026
• DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003168
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2163-0755

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: The National Field Triage Guidelines were created to inform triage decisions by emergency medical services (EMS) providers and include eight anatomic injuries that prompt transportation to a Level I/II trauma center. It is unclear how accurately EMS providers recognize these injuries. Our objective was to compare EMS-identified anatomic triage criteria with International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) coding of these criteria, as well as their association with trauma center need (TCN). METHODS: Scene patients 16 years and older in the NTDB during 2017 were included. National Field Triage Guidelines anatomic criteria were classified based on EMS documentation and ICD-10 diagnosis codes. The primary outcome was TCN, a composite of Injury Severity Score greater than 15, intensive care unit admission, urgent surgery, or emergency department death. Prevalence of anatomic criteria and their association with TCN was compared in EMS-identified versus ICD-10–coded criteria. Diagnostic performance to predict TCN was compared. RESULTS: There were 669, 795 patients analyzed. The ICD-10 coding demonstrated a greater prevalence of injury detection. Emergency medical service–identified versus ICD-10–coded anatomic criteria were less sensitive (31% vs. 59%), but more specific (91% vs. 73%) and accurate (71% vs. 68%) for predicting TCN. Emergency medical service providers demonstrated a marked reduction in false positives (9% vs. 27%) but higher rates of false negatives (69% vs. 42%) in predicting TCN from anatomic criteria. Odds of TCN were significantly greater for EMS-identified criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.46–4.58) versus ICD-10 coding (adjusted odds ratio 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.71–3.79). Of EMS-identified injuries, penetrating injury, flail chest, and two or more proximal long bone fractures were associated with greater TCN than ICD-10 coding. CONCLUSION: When evaluating the anatomic criteria, EMS demonstrate greater specificity and accuracy in predicting TCN, as well as reduced false positives compared with ICD-10 coding. Emergency medical services identification is less sensitive for anatomic criteria; however, EMS identify the most clinically significant injuries. Further study is warranted to identify the most clinically important anatomic triage criteria to improve our triage protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, Level IV; Prognostic, Level III. Abstract : Supplemental digital content is available in the text.