Tag Archives: triage

General

AAST 2011: Benefit of Transport to a Trauma Center

Leave a comment

Most trauma systems set certain prehospital criteria that, when met, direct that patient to a trauma center. It is now well-established that care of these patients results in improved survival if they are managed at those centers. Unfortunately, undertriage is still a problem, meaning that those patients may not always be taken to a hospital most appropriate to care for their injuries. What is the penalty that your patient pays if this happens?

The University of Toronto performed a nice, prospective study across a large region with both urban and rural areas. Database information was analyzed for all victims of motor vehicle crashes who had a severe injury (ISS>15) or who died. Over 6,000 crash victims’ data were analyzed. 

Just under half of the victims (45%) were triaged to a trauma center. Of those who were taken to other hospitals, slightly more than half (58%) were transferred to one within 24 hours, but nearly 5% died in the non-trauma center ED. The overall mortality for severely injured patients who were taken to a nontrauma center was 8.7%. This was a 30% increase in adjusted mortality compared to those taken to a trauma center directly.

Bottom line: Follow the rules! EMS authorities and trauma systems should make it a priority to adopt the CDC protocol (see below) or create trauma guidelines based on them that ensure patients with significant injuries are taken directly to a trauma center. Going to the nearest hospital (if it is not a trauma center) or bending to the patient’s preference is not in their best interest (and may kill them)!

Click here to download the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Trauma Triage Protocol. This should be used as a standard!

Reference: The mortality benefit of direct trauma center transport in a regional trauma system: a population-based analysis. AAST 2011 Annual Meeting, Paper 50.

General

Trauma Patient Stability

Leave a comment

EMS in the field and physicians in the ED are faced with rapidly assigning some degree of stability to the patients they treat. What exactly are the shades of stability, and what considerations are there for each degree?

In my mind, there are three levels of “stability”:

  • Unstable – this one is easy to figure out. The patient has obvious physiologic compromise, which may be objective (low blood pressure, low GCS or poor neuro exam, etc) or subjective (just plain looks bad). 
    EMS: These patients need transport to an appropriate level trauma center (I or II) immediately. If they need airway control or IV access that can’t be obtained in the field, stop at the nearest Level III or IV for assist, then continue on your way FAST. 
    ED: These patient must be a trauma activation. If not activated as your top-tier trauma, activate or upgrade now! These patients must be seen by a trauma surgeon immediately, and can only go to the OR. No diagnostics outside the resuscitation room are allowed unless they can be converted into one of the two stability levels below.
  • Stable – this one is usually easy to figure out, too. These patients look good, have good vitals, and a low to moderate energy mechanism for their trauma. Look out for those few patients that may be hiding something like moderate bleeding into some body cavity.
    EMS: Follow your usual transport protocols to select the closest, appropriate hospital.
    ED: Follow your standard protocols for trauma activation if needed. Transport for standard imaging is fine.
  •  Metastable – this is a term I invented. It describes patients who have evidence of ongoing volume loss that can be controlled with infusion of crystalloid and/or blood products. It is possible to maintain a certainly level of stability using higher than normal volume infusions. This allows physicians to consider diagnostics or interventions outside of an OR.
    EMS: Ensure adequate IV access and give fluids and/or blood per your local protocols. Transport to a Level I or II trauma center as quickly as possible.
    ED: Activate or upgrade to your highest level of trauma activation. The trauma surgeon needs to be present to help direct diagnostics or interventions. These patients may go to CT, IR or other appropriate areas with nurse and physician accompaniment to diagnose and possibly treat bleeding. If the patient changes to unstable at any point, they must immediately be taken to the OR.

I am interested in other opinions on this as well. Please post your comments!

General

Trauma Overtriage: Why Is It Bad?

Leave a comment

Back in December I talked about the dangers of undertriaging trauma patients (click here to review). What about the opposite problem, overtriage?

First, how do you calculate your overtriage rate? It’s pretty simple. Use your trauma registry to count how many patients arriving in the ED were trauma activations but didn’t meet any criteria:

(Number of ED trauma patients who were trauma activations
                         but did not meet activation criteria)

        ——————————————————–           x 100
                  (Total number of trauma activations)

This can only be accurately determined if the activation criteria are recorded on each patient. If not, use the following equation:

 (Number of ED trauma patients who were trauma activations
                                     with ISS <= 15)
       ———————————————————           x 100
                  (Total number of trauma activations)

Values can range from 0% to 100%. The usually acceptable overtriage rate is 50-80%. What happens when the overtriage rate is too high? You wear out your trauma team. They are being called for patients with injuries that don’t warrant it.

The solution for overtriage? Change your activation criteria, or add a second level trauma response that doesn’t require as many people to respond. This requires a thoughtful analysis of your existing criteria so you can decide what needs to be changed or discarded.

The danger? More undertriage. Over- and undertriage go hand in hand. As overtriage decreases, undertriage increases. You need to strike a balance so that the undertriage rate stays below 5%. This makes an excellent performance improvement (PI) program project!

General

Trauma Undertriage: Why Is It Bad?

Leave a comment

Trauma centers look at over- and undertriage rates as part of their performance improvement programs. Both are undesirable for a number of reasons. I’ll focus on undertriage today, why it happens and what can be done about it.

Undertriage in trauma care refers to the situation where a patient who meets criteria for a trauma activation does not get one. First, calculate your “magic number”, the number of patients who should have been trauma activations.

If you track the exact triage criteria met at your hospital, it is calculated as follows:

 Magic Number = (Number of ED trauma patients who met activation criteria
                                           but were not trauma activations)

If you don’t track the triage criteria, you can use ISS>15 as a surrogate to identify those patients who had severe enough injuries that should have triggered an activation. This is not as accurate, because you can’t know the ISS when the patient comes in, but it will do in a pinch. In that case, the magic number is:

Magic Number = (Number of ED trauma patients with ISS>15
                                           but were not trauma activations)

Your undertriage rate is then calculated as follows

                                        Magic Number
        ———————————————————–    x 100
                   Total number of trauma patients seen in ED

Undertriage is bad because patients who have serious injuries are not met by the full trauma team, and would benefit from the extra manpower and speed possible with an activation.

The most common causes for undertriage are:

  • Failure to apply activation criteria
  • Criteria are too numerous or confusing
  • Injuries or mechanism information is missed or underappreciated

Undertriage rates can range from 0% to infinity (if you never activate your trauma team). A general rule is to try to keep it below 5%.

If your overtriage rate is climbing past the 5% threshold, identify every patient who meets the ISS criterion and do a complete ED flow review as concurrently as possible. Look at their injuries/mechanism and your criteria. If the criteria are not on your activation list, consider adding them. If the criterion is there, then look at the process by which the activation gets called. Typically the ED physicians and nurses will be able to clarify the problem and help you get it solved.