Maduz Roman, Kugelmeier Patrick, Meili Severin, Döring Robert, Meier Christoph, Wahl Peter
Division for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Cantonal Hospital, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Division for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Cantonal Hospital, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Injury. 2017 Apr;48(4):885-889. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.02.015. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) find increasingly widespread use to assess trauma burden and to perform interhospital benchmarking through trauma registries. Since 2015, public resource allocation in Switzerland shall even be derived from such data. As every trauma centre is responsible for its own coding and data input, this study aims at evaluating interobserver reliability of AIS and ISS coding.
Interobserver reliability of the AIS and ISS is analysed from a cohort of 50 consecutive severely injured patients treated in 2012 at our institution, coded retrospectively by 3 independent and specifically trained observers.
Considering a cutoff ISS≥16, only 38/50 patients (76%) were uniformly identified as polytraumatised or not. Increasing the cut off to ≥20, this increased to 41/50 patients (82%). A difference in the AIS of ≥ 1 was present in 261 (16%) of possible codes. Excluding the vast majority of uninjured body regions, uniformly identical AIS severity values were attributed in 67/193 (35%) body regions, or 318/579 (55%) possible observer pairings.
Injury severity all too often is neither identified correctly nor consistently when using the AIS. This leads to wrong identification of severely injured patients using the ISS. Improving consistency of coding through centralisation is recommended before scores based on the AIS are to be used for interhospital benchmarking and resource allocation in the treatment of severely injured patients.
简明损伤定级标准(AIS)和损伤严重度评分(ISS)在评估创伤负担以及通过创伤登记系统进行医院间基准比较方面的应用越来越广泛。自2015年起,瑞士的公共资源分配甚至应基于此类数据。由于每个创伤中心负责自己的编码和数据录入,本研究旨在评估AIS和ISS编码的观察者间可靠性。
对2012年在我们机构接受治疗的50例连续重伤患者进行队列研究,分析AIS和ISS的观察者间可靠性,由3名独立且经过专门培训的观察者进行回顾性编码。
将ISS临界值设为≥16时,只有38/50例患者(76%)被一致判定为多发伤或非多发伤。将临界值提高到≥20时,这一比例增至41/50例患者(82%)。在可能的编码中,261例(16%)的AIS差异≥1。排除绝大多数未受伤的身体区域后,在67/193个(35%)身体区域或318/579个(55%)可能的观察者配对中,AIS严重度值被一致认定。
使用AIS时,损伤严重度常常既不能被正确识别,也不能保持一致。这导致使用ISS时对重伤患者的识别错误。在基于AIS的评分用于重伤患者治疗的医院间基准比较和资源分配之前,建议通过集中化提高编码的一致性。