Newgard Craig D, Yang Zhuo, Nishijima Daniel, McConnell K John, Trent Stacy A, Holmes James F, Daya Mohamud, Mann N Clay, Hsia Renee Y, Rea Tom D, Wang N Ewen, Staudenmayer Kristan, Delgado M Kit
Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Jun;222(6):1125-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.02.014. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma sets national targets for the accuracy of field trauma triage at ≥95% sensitivity and ≥65% specificity, yet the cost-effectiveness of realizing these goals is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of current field trauma triage practices compared with triage strategies consistent with the national targets.
This was a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 79,937 injured adults transported by 48 emergency medical services agencies to 105 trauma and nontrauma hospitals in 6 regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. Incremental differences in survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (costs per QALY gained) were estimated for each triage strategy during a 1-year and lifetime horizon using a decision analytic Markov model. We considered an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold of <$100,000 to be cost-effective.
For these 6 regions, a high-sensitivity triage strategy consistent with national trauma policy (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 17.1%) would cost $1,317,333 per QALY gained, and current triage practices (sensitivity 87.2%, specificity 64.0%) cost $88,000 per QALY gained, compared with a moderate sensitivity strategy (sensitivity 71.2%, specificity 66.5%). Refining emergency medical services transport patterns by triage status improved cost-effectiveness. At the trauma-system level, a high-sensitivity triage strategy would save 3.7 additional lives per year at a 1-year cost of $8.78 million, and a moderate sensitivity approach would cost 5.2 additional lives and save $781,616 each year.
A high-sensitivity approach to field triage consistent with national trauma policy is not cost-effective. The most cost-effective approach to field triage appears closely tied to triage specificity and adherence to triage-based emergency medical services transport practices.
美国外科医师学会创伤委员会设定了现场创伤分诊准确性的全国目标,即灵敏度≥95%,特异度≥65%,然而实现这些目标的成本效益尚不清楚。我们评估了当前现场创伤分诊实践与符合全国目标的分诊策略相比的成本效益。
这是一项成本效益分析,使用了2006年至2008年期间48个紧急医疗服务机构将79937名受伤成年人转运至美国西部6个地区的105家创伤和非创伤医院的数据。使用决策分析马尔可夫模型,在1年和终身范围内估计了每种分诊策略在生存、质量调整生命年(QALY)、成本和增量成本效益比(每获得一个QALY的成本)方面的增量差异。我们认为增量成本效益比阈值<$100,000具有成本效益。
对于这6个地区,与国家创伤政策一致的高灵敏度分诊策略(灵敏度98.6%,特异度17.1%)每获得一个QALY的成本为1317333美元,当前分诊实践(灵敏度87.2%,特异度64.0%)每获得一个QALY的成本为88000美元,而中度灵敏度策略(灵敏度71.2%,特异度66.5%)。根据分诊状态优化紧急医疗服务运输模式可提高成本效益。在创伤系统层面,高灵敏度分诊策略每年可多挽救3.7条生命,1年成本为878万美元,中度灵敏度方法每年会多造成5.2人死亡,但可节省781616美元。
与国家创伤政策一致的高灵敏度现场分诊方法不具有成本效益。最具成本效益的现场分诊方法似乎与分诊特异度以及遵循基于分诊的紧急医疗服务运输实践密切相关。