From the Baylor University Medical Center (N.R.P., L.Y., M.L.F.), Dallas, Texas.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 May;84(5):718-726. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001814.
The Cribari matrix method (CMM) is the standard to identify potential overtriage 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 overtriage and undertriage than the CMM alone.
The registry of an American College of Surgeons verified Level I adult trauma center in Texas was queried for all new emergency department traumas 2013 to 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 3 days and total length of stay).
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%).
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.
Prognostic, level III.
Cribari 矩阵方法(CMM)是识别潜在过度分诊和分诊不足的标准,但需要进行病例复查,以纠正损伤严重程度评分未考虑生理状况或合并症,且与资源消耗相关性差的事实。此外,二次审查引入了不必要的主观性。本研究评估了标准化分诊评估工具(STAT)——CMM 与创伤干预需求的结合——是否比单独使用 CMM 更能准确确定过度分诊和分诊不足。
对德克萨斯州一家美国外科医师学院认证的一级成人创伤中心的注册表进行了查询,以获取 2013 年至 2016 年所有新的急诊科创伤患者(n=11110)。使用二元逻辑回归测试每个指标的分诊结果与损伤严重程度指标(风险因素、并发症和死亡率)和资源消耗(3 天内的手术次数和总住院时间)之间的关联。
这两个指标与预期的损伤严重程度和资源消耗指标都有相关性,但 STAT 与所有测试变量的相关性更强或相当。使用 CMM,过度分诊率为 50.4%,分诊不足率为 9.1%。使用 STAT,过度分诊率降低至 30.8%(相对减少 38.9%),分诊不足率降低至 3.3%(相对减少 63.7%)。
由于这些复查的主观性和非标准化性质,使用 CMM 进行二次病例复查使得有效的多机构分诊率比较变得不可能。STAT 的开箱即用分诊决策(即无需手动病例复查)在几乎所有测试变量上都优于 CMM,无论是过度分诊还是分诊不足。STAT 是一种自动、标准化的方法,与当前的主观系统相比有显著的改进。此外,通过同时考虑解剖损伤严重程度和资源消耗,STAT 可以使创伤中心更好地分配资源,并预测患者需求,减少需要手动复查的病例数量。
预后,III 级。