Background The Cribari matrix method (CMM) is the standard to identify potential over- and undertriage but requires case reviews to correct for the fact that Injury Severity Score does not account for physiology or comorbidities, nor is it well correlated with resource consumption. Further, the secondary reviews introduce undesirable subjectivity. This study assessed if the Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT)—a combination of the CMM and the Need For Trauma Intervention—could more accurately determine over- and undertriage than the CMM alone. Methods The registry of an ACS verified Level I adult trauma center in Texas was queried for all new ED traumas 2013-2016 (n = 11,110). Binary logistic regressions were used to test the associations between the triage determinations of each metric against indicators of injury severity (risk factors, complications, and mortality) and resource consumption (number of procedures in three days and total length of stay). Results Both metrics were associated with the indicators of injury severity and resource consumption in the expected directions, but STAT had stronger or equivalent associations with all variables tested. Using the CMM, there was 50.4% overtriage and 9.1% undertriage. Using STAT, overtriage was reduced to 30.8% (relative reduction = 38.9%) and undertriage was reduced to 3.3% (relative reduction = 63.7%). Conclusions Using the CMM with secondary case reviews makes valid multi-institutional triage rate comparisons impossible because of the subjective and unstandardized nature of these reviews. STAT’s out-of-box triage determinations (i.e., without manual case review) outperformed CMM in almost every tested variable for both over- and undertriage. STAT, an automatic, standardized method offers significant improvements compared to the current subjective system. Further, by accounting for both anatomic injury severity and resource consumption, STAT may allow trauma centers to better allocate resources and predict patient needs with fewer cases requiring manual review. Level of Evidence diagnostic criteria, level II All authors may be reached at 3409 Worth Street, Suite C2.500, Dallas, Texas 75246 All authors declare no conflicts of interest exist. This manuscript was presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, September 13-16, 2017 in Baltimore, MD. © 2018 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
from Emergency Medicine via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2E8sIZk
Εγγραφή σε:
Σχόλια ανάρτησης (Atom)
Δημοφιλείς αναρτήσεις
-
Abstract Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer, and its incidence is increasing. The first step in automated melanoma analysis of ...
-
Skillful use of BiPAP and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can avoid intubation and improve outcomes. However, there isn't comprehensive ...
-
http://bit.ly/2DY4P7b
-
Weigh the pros and cons of partnering with a billing partner to maximize your revenue from EMS via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt...
-
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in severe burns and can lead to significantly poorer outcomes. Although the prognosis has...
-
Abstract Objective Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) following hybrid arch repair (HAR) is a lethal complication. Open surgical repair is ...
-
Abstract Target detection in the multiscale situation where there exit multiple ship targets with different sizes is a challenging task du...
-
Objectives: In various medical and surgical conditions, research has found that centers with higher patient volumes have better outcomes. Th...
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου