BACKGROUND: Care for injured patients in England is provided by inclusive regional trauma networks. Ambulance services use triage tools to identify patients with major trauma who would benefit from expedited Major Trauma Centre (MTC) care. However, there has been no investigation of triage performance, despite its role in ensuring effective and efficient MTC care. This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of prehospital major trauma triage in representative English trauma networks.
METHODS: A diagnostic case-cohort study was performed between November 2019 and February 2020 in 4 English regional trauma networks as part of the Major Trauma Triage Study (MATTS). Consecutive patients with acute injury presenting to participating ambulance services were included, together with all reference standard positive cases, and matched to data from the English national major trauma database. The index test was prehospital provider triage decision making, with a positive result defined as patient transport with a pre-alert call to the MTC. The primary reference standard was a consensus definition of serious injury that would benefit from expedited major trauma centre care. Secondary analyses explored different reference standards and compared theoretical triage tool accuracy to real-life triage decisions.
RESULTS: The complete-case case-cohort sample consisted of 2,757 patients, including 959 primary reference standard positive patients. The prevalence of major trauma meeting the primary reference standard definition was 3.1% (n=54/1,722, 95% CI 2.3 - 4.0). Observed prehospital provider triage decisions demonstrated overall sensitivity of 46.7% (n=446/959, 95% CI 43.5-49.9) and specificity of 94.5% (n=1,703/1,798, 95% CI 93.4-95.6) for the primary reference standard. There was a clear trend of decreasing sensitivity and increasing specificity from younger to older age groups. Prehospital provider triage decisions commonly differed from the theoretical triage tool result, with ambulance service clinician judgement resulting in higher specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital decision making for injured patients in English trauma networks demonstrated high specificity and low sensitivity, consistent with the targets for cost-effective triage defined in previous economic evaluations. Actual triage decisions differed from theoretical triage tool results, with a decreasing sensitivity and increasing specificity from younger to older ages.

暂无摘要。

Many health care systems triage injured patients to major trauma centres (MTCs) or local hospitals by using triage tools and paramedic judgement. Triage tools are typically assessed by whether patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 go to an MTC and whether patients with an ISS < 16 are sent to their local hospital. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity of triage tools, with the optimal balance being unknown. We conducted an economic evaluation of major trauma triage tools to identify which tool would be considered cost-effective by UK decision makers.
A patient-level, probabilistic, mathematical model of a UK major trauma system was developed. Patients with an ISS ≥ 16 who were only treated at local hospitals had worse outcomes compared to being treated in an MTC. Nine empirically derived triage tools, from a previous study, were examined so we assessed triage tools with realistic trade-offs between triage tool sensitivity and specificity. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each tool and compared to maximum acceptable ICERs (MAICERs) in England.
Four tools had ICERs within the normal range of MAICERs used by English decision makers (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). A low sensitivity (28.4%) and high specificity (88.6%) would be cost-effective at the lower end of this range while higher sensitivity (87.5%) and lower specificity (62.8%) was cost-effective towards the upper end of this range. These results were sensitive to the cost of MTC admissions and whether MTCs had a benefit for patients with an ISS between 9 and 15.
The cost-effective triage tool depends on the English decision maker\'s MAICER for this health problem. In the usual range of MAICERs, cost-effective prehospital trauma triage involves clinically suboptimal sensitivity, with a proportion of seriously injured patients (at least 10%) being initially transported to local hospitals. High sensitivity trauma triage requires development of more accurate decision rules; research to establish if patients with an ISS between 9 and 15 benefit from MTCs; or, inefficient use of health care resources to manage patients with less serious injuries at MTCs.

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of peripheral vestibular disorders in clinical practice is an especially difficult endeavor, particularly for the inexperienced clinician. The goal of this systematic review is thus to evaluate the design, approaches, and outcomes for clinical vestibular symptom triage and decision support tools reported in contemporary published literature.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of existing literature in August 2020 was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE using terms of desired diagnostic tools such as algorithm, protocol, and questionnaire as well as an exhaustive set of terms to encompass vestibular disorders.
METHODS: Study characteristics, tool metrics, and performance were extracted using a standardized form. Quality assessment was conducted using a modified version of the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) assessment tool.
RESULTS: A total of 18 articles each reporting a novel tool for the evaluation of vestibular disorders were identified. Tools were organized into 3 discrete categories, including self-administered questionnaires, health care professional administered tools, and decision support systems. Most tools could differentiate between specific vestibular pathologies, with outcome measures including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: A multitude of tools have been published to aid with the evaluation of vertiginous patients. Our systematic review identified several low-evidence reports of triage and decision support tools for the evaluation of vestibular disorders.