6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Prehospital Triage of Trauma Patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Can a new prehospital prediction model for trauma triage lower the undertriage rate to approximately 10%, with a maximum overtriage rate of 50%? In this multicenter cohort study that included 4950 patients with trauma, 8 highly significant predictors associated with injury severity were selected for the prediction model. The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model was externally validated and may lower the undertriage rate to 11.2% with an overtriage rate of 50.0%. This prediction model can be integrated in a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals to improve the prehospital trauma triage. This multicenter cohort study develops and validates a new prehospital trauma triage protocol based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury to improve current triage rates. Prehospital trauma triage protocols are used worldwide to get the right patient to the right hospital and thereby improve the chance of survival and avert lifelong disabilities. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma set target levels for undertriage rates of less than 5%. None of the existing triage protocols has been able to achieve this target in isolation. To develop and validate a new prehospital trauma triage protocol to improve current triage rates. In this multicenter cohort study, all patients with trauma who were 16 years and older and transported to a trauma center in 2 different regions of the Netherlands were included in the analysis. Data were collected from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, in the Central Netherlands region for the design data cohort and from January 1 through December 31, 2015, in the Brabant region for the validation cohort. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2017, through July 19, 2018. A new prediction model was developed in the Central Netherlands region based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury. Severe injury was defined as an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. A full-model strategy with penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a model with 8 predictors that were chosen based on clinical reasoning. Accuracy of the developed prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. The model was externally validated in the Brabant region. Using data from 4950 patients with trauma from the Central Netherlands region for the design data set (58.3% male; mean [SD] age, 47 [21] years) and 6859 patients for the validation Brabant region (52.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51 [22] years), the following 8 significant predictors were selected for the prediction model: age; systolic blood pressure; Glasgow Coma Scale score; mechanism criteria; penetrating injury to the head, thorax, or abdomen; signs and/or symptoms of head or neck injury; expected injury in the Abbreviated Injury Scale thorax region; and expected injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale regions. The prediction model showed a C statistic of 0.823 (95% CI, 0.813-0.832) and good calibration. The cutoff point with a minimum specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 49.3%-50.7%) led to a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-90.0%). External validation showed a C statistic of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.814-0.848) and adequate calibration. The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model may lower undertriage rates to approximately 10% with an overtriage rate of 50%. The next step should be to implement this prediction model with the use of a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality.

          Hospitals have difficulty justifying the expense of maintaining trauma centers without strong evidence of their effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined differences in mortality between level 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers). Mortality outcomes were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers located in 14 states. Patients 18 to 84 years old with a moderate-to-severe injury were eligible. Complete data were obtained for 1104 patients who died in the hospital and 4087 patients who were discharged alive. We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for observable differences between patients treated at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers. After adjustment for differences in the case mix, the in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent vs. 9.5 percent; relative risk, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98), as was the one-year mortality rate (10.4 percent vs. 13.8 percent; relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95). The effects of treatment at a trauma center varied according to the severity of injury, with evidence to suggest that differences in mortality rates were primarily confined to patients with more severe injuries. Our findings show that the risk of death is significantly lower when care is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for continued efforts at regionalization. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis.

            Several studies and systematic reviews have reported results that indicate that sensitivity and specificity may vary with prevalence. We identify and explore mechanisms that may be responsible for sensitivity and specificity varying with prevalence and illustrate them with examples from the literature. Clinical and artefactual variability may be responsible for changes in prevalence and accompanying changes in sensitivity and specificity. Clinical variability refers to differences in the clinical situation that may cause sensitivity and specificity to vary with prevalence. For example, a patient population with a higher disease prevalence may include more severely diseased patients, therefore, the test performs better in this population. Artefactual variability refers to effects on prevalence and accuracy associated with study design, for example, the verification of index test results by a reference standard. Changes in prevalence influence the extent of overestimation due to imperfect reference standard classification. Sensitivity and specificity may vary in different clinical populations, and prevalence is a marker for such differences. Clinicians are advised to base their decisions on studies that most closely match their own clinical situation, using prevalence to guide the detection of differences in study population or study design.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Update of the trauma risk adjustment model of the TraumaRegister DGU™: the Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II

              Introduction The TraumaRegister DGU™ (TR-DGU) has used the Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) score for outcome adjustment since 2003. In recent years, however, the observed mortality rate has fallen to about 2% below the prognosis, and it was felt that further prognostic factors, like pupil size and reaction, should be included as well. Finally, an increasing number of cases did not receive a RISC prognosis due to the missing values. Therefore, there was a need for an updated model for risk of death prediction in severely injured patients to be developed and validated using the most recent data. Methods The TR-DGU has been collecting data from severely injured patients since 1993. All injuries are coded according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS, version 2008). Severely injured patients from Europe (ISS ≥4) documented between 2010 and 2011 were selected for developing the new score (n = 30,866), and 21,918 patients from 2012 were used for validation. Age and injury codes were required, and transferred patients were excluded. Logistic regression analysis was applied with hospital mortality as the dependent variable. Results were evaluated in terms of discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC), precision (observed versus predicted mortality), and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic). Results The mean age of the development population was 47.3 years; 71.6% were males, and the average ISS was 19.3 points. Hospital mortality rate was 11.5% in this group. The new RISC II model consists of the following predictors: worst and second-worst injury (AIS severity level), head injury, age, sex, pupil reactivity and size, pre-injury health status, blood pressure, acidosis (base deficit), coagulation, haemoglobin, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Missing values are included as a separate category for every variable. In the development and the validation dataset, the new RISC II outperformed the original RISC score, for example AUC in the development dataset 0.953 versus 0.939. Conclusions The updated RISC II prognostic score has several advantages over the previous RISC model. Discrimination, precision and calibration are improved, and patients with partial missing values could now be included. Results were confirmed in a validation dataset.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Surgery
                JAMA Surg
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6254
                February 06 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Traumatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
                [3 ]Utrecht Traumacenter, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [4 ]Regional Ambulance Facility Utrecht, Utrecht Regional Ambulance Service, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [5 ]Network Emergency Care Brabant, Brabant Trauma Registry, Tilburg, the Netherlands
                [6 ]Clinical Research Unit, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [7 ]SimQuest Solutions Inc, Annapolis, Maryland
                [8 ]Section of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland
                [9 ]Department of Traumatology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
                [10 ]Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                Article
                10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4752
                6537785
                30725101
                4d1055a0-8dca-497c-bae7-a50925cd28eb
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article