Suppr超能文献

神奇数字:在分诊率低于 5%的创伤中心是否能观察到改善的结果?

The magic number: Are improved outcomes observed at trauma centers with undertriage rates below 5%?

机构信息

From the Trauma Services, Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health (S.J., E.B., B.G., M.R., F.R.), Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Trauma Research Program (A.C.), Chandler Regional Medical Center, Chandler, Arizona.

出版信息

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Oct;85(4):752-755. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002002.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) advises trauma centers maintain <5% undertriage rate (UTR), but provides limited rationale for this figure. We sought to determine whether patients managed at Level I/II trauma centers with a UTR less than 5% had improved outcomes compared with centers with greater than 5% UTR. We hypothesized that similar overall adjusted outcomes would be observed at trauma centers in Pennsylvania regardless of their compliance with ACSCOT undertriage recommendation.

METHODS

The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database was retrospectively queried for all trauma patients managed at accredited adult Level I/II trauma centers (n = 27) from 2003 to 2015. Patients with missing data on Injury Severity Score and/or Trauma Activation Status were excluded from the analysis. Institutional UTR were calculated for all trauma centers based on ACSCOT criteria (Injury Severity Score >15; no trauma activation) and were categorized into less than 5% or greater than 5% subgroups. A multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model assessed the adjusted impact of management at centers with less than 5% undertriage. Statistical significance was set at p less than 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 404,315 patients from 27 trauma centers met inclusion criteria. Institutional UTRs ranged from 0% to 20.5%, with 15 centers exhibiting UTR less than 5% and 12 centers with UTR greater than 5%. No clinically meaningful difference in unadjusted mortality rate was observed between subgroups (<5% UTR: 5.19%; >5% UTR: 5.20%; p < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, no difference in mortality was found for patients managed at centers with less than 5% UTR compared to those with greater than 5% UTR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.33; p = 0.608).

CONCLUSION

Achieving ACSCOT less than 5% undertriage standards appears to have limited impact on institutional mortality. Further research should seek to identify new triage criteria that can be uniformly applied to all trauma centers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological study, level III.

摘要

背景

美国外科医师学会创伤委员会(ACSCOT)建议创伤中心将分诊不足率(UTR)维持在<5%,但并未提供该数字的基本原理。我们试图确定在 UTR 小于 5%的 I/II 级创伤中心接受治疗的患者与 UTR 大于 5%的中心相比,其结局是否有所改善。我们假设,无论是否符合 ACSCOT 分诊不足的建议,宾夕法尼亚州的创伤中心都将观察到相似的总体调整结局。

方法

回顾性查询了 2003 年至 2015 年期间在经认证的成人 I/II 级创伤中心(n=27)接受治疗的所有创伤患者的宾夕法尼亚州创伤结局研究数据库。排除了创伤激活状态和/或损伤严重程度评分缺失数据的患者。根据 ACSCOT 标准(损伤严重程度评分>15;无创伤激活)计算所有创伤中心的机构 UTR,并分为<5%或>5%亚组。多水平混合效应逻辑回归模型评估了在 UTR<5%的中心进行管理对调整后的影响。统计显著性设为 p<0.05。

结果

共有 27 家创伤中心的 404315 名患者符合纳入标准。机构 UTR 范围为 0%至 20.5%,其中 15 家中心的 UTR<5%,12 家中心的 UTR>5%。在未调整死亡率方面,亚组之间没有观察到有临床意义的差异(<5%UTR:5.19%;>5%UTR:5.20%;p<0.001)。在调整分析中,与 UTR>5%的中心相比,在 UTR<5%的中心接受治疗的患者死亡率没有差异(调整比值比,1.06;95%置信区间,0.85-1.33;p=0.608)。

结论

达到 ACSCOT<5%的分诊不足标准似乎对机构死亡率的影响有限。应进一步研究,以确定可统一应用于所有创伤中心的新分诊标准。

证据水平

流行病学研究,III 级。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验