Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Original research
  • Open Access

Undertriage of major trauma patients at a university hospital: a retrospective cohort study

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine201826:64

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0524-z

  • Received: 3 January 2018
  • Accepted: 2 July 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Studies show increased mortality among severely injured patients not met by trauma team. Proper triage is important to ensure that all severely injured patients receive vital trauma care. In 2017 a new national trauma plan was implemented in Norway, which recommended the use of a modified version of “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients” to identify severely injured patients.

Methods

A retrospective study of 30,444 patients admitted to Haukeland University Hospital in 2013, with ICD-10 injury codes upon discharge. The exclusion criteria were department affiliation considered irrelevant when identifying trauma, patients with injuries that resulted in Injury Severity Score < 15, patients that did receive trauma team, and patients admitted > 24 h after time of injury. Information from patient records of every severely injured patient admitted in 2013 was obtained in order to investigate the sensitivity of the new guidelines.

Results

Trauma team activation was performed in 369 admissions and 85 patients were identified as major trauma. Ten severely injured patients did not receive trauma team resuscitation, resulting in an undertriage of 10.5%. Nine out of ten patients were men, median age 54 years. Five patients were 60 years or older. All of the undertriaged patients experienced fall from low height (< 4 m). Traumatic brain injury was seen in six patients. Six patients had a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤ 13. The new trauma activation guidelines had a sensitivity of 95.0% in our 2013 trauma population. The degree of undertriage could have been reduced to 4.0% had the guidelines been implemented and correctly applied.

Conclusions

The rate of undertriage at Haukeland University Hospital in 2013 was above the recommendations of less than 5%. Use of the new trauma guidelines showed increased triage precision in the present trauma population.

Keywords

  • American College of Surgeons, Committee on trauma
  • Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients
  • Haukeland University Hospital
  • National Trauma Plan
  • Norway
  • Trauma
  • Trauma team
  • Undertriage

Background

Studies show increased survival among severely injured patients met by a dedicated trauma team [16] and that implementation of trauma centers improve outcome in trauma patients [1, 713]. Trauma centers require a vast amount of human and financial resources to function as intended [14, 15]. In order to justify the expense, it is essential to maintain a reliable system able to identify patients with severe injury, while excluding non- and minor injuries.

Early trauma evaluation can be a challenge. In light of its dynamic nature, the wide range of possible injuries and the limited tools at disposal, occasional mistriage is to be expected. Mistriage is divided into under- and overtriage: Undertriage is defined as the proportion of severely injured patients not managed by a dedicated trauma team, while overtriage is the proportion of patients not severely injured but still receiving such care. The degree of undertriage is an indicator of the sensitivity of the trauma system. Overtriage is unfortunate as it is costly and exhausts human and financial recourses [16, 17]. Undertriage of less than 5% and overtriage of 25–30% is deemed acceptable according to the American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma [18].

All the Regional Health Thrusts in Norway have recently implemented the “National Trauma Plan 2016”, a national protocol for managing trauma patients. The new trauma plan recommends the use of a modified version of the “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients” nationwide for field triage as well as in hospitals, including pediatric trauma (Figs. 1 and 2) [19]. The guidelines recommend a four-stage triage process based on deviations in vital signs, anatomical injury, mechanism of injury (MOI) and special considerations, in descending priority. Patients who fail to meet the physiological criteria should be evaluated in terms of anatomical injury, then in terms of mechanism of injury, and so on. The decision scheme is widely implemented in the US health care system [20, 21], has been regularly revised since its inception in 1976, and underwent its latest update in 2011 [20]. Several studies have found the tool to be highly sensitive for identifying severe trauma (> 95%) [22, 23]. However, some studies indicate a lower sensitivity than previously thought [24], especially among elderly patients [2528].
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Trauma team activation criteria

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Transport criteria

The Norwegian health system is divided into four health thrusts. Each thrust has a regional trauma center in addition to acute care hospitals with trauma function. Trauma centers provide definite care for all injuries and have access to all surgical specialties. Our study was conducted at Haukeland University Hospital (HUH). HUH is the local hospital for a population of 380,000 inhabitants and also serves as a regional trauma center for 1.1 million people in Hordaland, Rogaland and Sogn og Fjordane counties [29]. This region consists of five acute care hospitals, with HUH functioning as the regional trauma center in Western Norway. The national burn unit in Norway is located at HUH. HUH admits approximately 350–400 trauma patients each year, of which 75–90 have ISS ≥ 15.

Trauma team activation at HUH is based on initial pre-hospital information or on in-hospital clinical assessment. Single-tiered trauma team is used regardless of the assumed degree of injury. Until 2016, HUH used local criteria for trauma team activation. These criteria were mainly centered on anatomical injury, MOI and, to a lesser extent, vital signs. Despite undertriage being acknowledged as a useful tool when assessing the quality of a trauma system, no systematic investigations of triage accuracy have previously been conducted at HUH. The purpose of this study was twofold: to investigate the rate of undertriage at HUH, and to evaluate the ability of the modified version of the “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients” to identify severely injured patients.

Methods

Our retrospective study included 30,444 patients admitted to HUH in 2013. Data were obtained from HUH’s patient registry, which entails information about all patients who have received specialized health care services. Patient identity was anonymized. The data set was based on discharge codes according to the 10th version of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). The patients in the data set had codes ranging from S00 to T88.

Injury Severity Score (ISS) is a well-established scoring system for multi trauma, used to determine injury severity and risk of mortality [30]. Each injury is categorized according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) [31]. ISS is the sum of squares from the highest AIS grades in the three most severely injured ISS body regions (see Appendix for further details).

In order to find potentially undertriaged patients among the 30,444 admissions, we excluded patients admitted to departments considered unlikely to handle trauma (Table 1) and patients with single injuries where the AIS score was ≤3 (Table 2). Patients with multiple injuries in the same body region where the highest injury gave AIS ≤ 3 and where there were no injuries to other body regions, were also excluded (Table 3). Lastly, we excluded patients registered as trauma team recipients. This process was done by using filtration in Microsoft Excel and the local trauma register (see Appendix for details). Following this, 2579 medical records were manually reviewed by the first and second author. We now excluded patients with ISS < 15 or admitted > 24 h after time of injury. Every patient with ISS ≥ 13 was double-checked by the last author. One patient with ISS ≥ 15 was already registered as undertriaged in the local trauma register but was not identified in our filtration due to incorrect ICD-10 coding upon discharge (lack of S or T codes). Burn patients were excluded. The reason for this is that patients with isolated burn injuries were not routinely considered in need of trauma team according to practice in 2013. They were instead handled by a dedicated team from the burn unit. The remaining patients had ISS ≥ 15, were admitted < 24 h after time of injury and not met by trauma team (Fig. 3).
Table 1

Included and excluded departments

Included departments

Excluded departments

Dep. of Orthopedic Surgery

Dep. for sexually transmitted diseases

Dep. of Internal Medicine

Dep. of Rehabilitation

Dep. of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Dep. of Breast and Endocrine Surgery

Dep. of Neurology

Dep. of immunology and transfusion medicine

Dep. of Thoracic Surgery

Dep. of Oncology and Medical Physics

Dep. of Gastric Surgery

Dep. of Foreign treatment

Dep. of Otorhinolaryngology

Dep. of Physiotherapy

The Burn Unit

Dep. of Habilitation services for adults

Dep. of Ophthalmology

Dep. of Dermatology

Dep. of Pulmonology and Respiratory Medicine

Kysthospitalet i Hagevik

Dep. of Vascular Surgery

Dep. of Orthopedic Rehabilitation

Dep. of Pediatrics

Dep. of Rheumatology

The Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine

Dep. of Palliative Care

Dep. of Neurological Surgery

Dep. of Occupational Medicine

Dep. of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Voss Delivery Ward

Dep. of Thoracic Surgery

Voss Gynecology Ward

Dep. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Voss Medical Ward

Dep. of Urologic Surgery

Voss Dep. of Physiotherapy

Table 2

Excluded single injury ICD-10 codes

S-Codes

 Injuries to the head

S00

S022

S023

S025

S026

S028

S03

S04

S05

S06

S08

S09

    

 Injuries to the neck

S10

S16

      

 Injuries to the thorax

S20

S223

      

 Injuries to the abdomen, lower back, lumbar spine, pelvis and external genitals

S30

       

 Injuries to shoulder and upper arm

S40

S41

S42

S43

S44

S45

S46

 

 Injuries to elbow and forearm

S50

S51

S54

S56

S57

S59

  

 Injuries to the wrist, hand and fingers

S60

S61

S62

S63

S64

S66

  

 Injuries to hip and thigh

S70

S72

S73

S74

S76

   

 Injuries to knee and lower leg

S80

S81

S82

S83

S84

S85

S86

 

 Injuries to ankle and foot

S90

S91

S92

S93

S94

S95

S96

S98

T-Codes

 Injuries involving multiple body regions

T00

       

 Effects of foreign body entering through natural orifice

T15

T16

T17

T18

T19

   

 Burns and corrosions of external body surface, specified by site

T23

T25

      

 Burns and corrosions confined to eye and internal organs

T26

       

 Burns and corrosions of multiple and unspecified body regions

T301

       

 Poisoning by, adverse effect of and under dosing of drugs, medicaments and biological substances

T4n

T41

T50

     

 Toxic effects of substances chiefly nonmedicinal as to source

T51

T52

T53

T54

T55

T56

T57

T58

T59

T60

T61

T62

T63

T64

T65

 

 Other and unspecified effects of external causes

T66

T67

T68

T69

T70

T71

T72

T73

T74

T75

T76

T77

T78

   

 Complications of surgical and medical care, not elsewhere classified

T80

T81

T82

T83

T84

T85

T86

T87

T88

       

 Complications after injury, poisoning and other consequences of external injury

T90

T91

T92

T93

T94

T95

T96

T97

T98

       

Any patient with these S- and T-codes as its only injury code, were excluded. Single injuries with AIS ≤ 3 and would not result in ISS > 9. ICD-10 T40–78 and T-80-99 were excluded since they are not a direct consequence of trauma

Table 3

Excluded multiple injury ICD-10 codes

Injuries to the head

S00

S022

S023

S025

S026

S03

S04

S05

S08

S09

      

Injuries to shoulder and upper arm

S40

S42

S43

S44

S45

S46

  

Injuries to elbow and forearm and injuries to the wrist, hand and fingers

S50

S51

S52

S53

S54

S55

S56

S57

S60

S61

S62

S63

S64

S66

S67

S69

Injuries to knee and lower leg and injuries to ankle and foot

S80

S81

S82

S83

S84

S86

  

S90

S91

S92

S93

S94

S95

S96

S98

Patients with multiple injuries located in the same ISS body region, but with no injuries located in other regions, were excluded if the injuries included these ICD-10 codes. When receiving multiple injures with AIS ≤ 3 in the same body region, only one injury from every region is included when calculating ISS

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Methods

Sensitivity and undertriage was defined in the same way as in another Norwegian study: Sensitivity as the proportion of severely injured patients managed by trauma team, and undertriage as the probability of a severely injured patient not receiving trauma team resuscitation during admission (i.e. 1-Sensitivity) [32]. The guidelines’ sensitivity was assessed by acquiring vital signs, anatomical injury and MOI from emergency department journals and emergency medical technician journals from every severely injured patient. We did not investigate the decision scheme’s specificity as this was considered beyond the scope of our study.

Informed consent was not required, as undertriage is part of the trauma system quality assessment. Approvals from the Regional Committee for Research Ethics and the Data Protection Official were waived (ref. no. 2015/259).

Results

In 2013, 85 of the 369 patients who were met by trauma team were severely injured (ISS ≥ 15). Ten severely injured patients did not receive trauma team resuscitation. In total, 95 patients qualifying for trauma team activation were admitted (85 + 10). This gives an undertriage of 10.5% (1–85/95 or 10/95) (see Table 4).
Table 4

Undertriage calculation

 

Severely injured

Not severely injured

Total

Trauma team activation

85

284

369

No trauma team activation

10

30,065

30,075

Total

95

30,349

30,444

Sensitivity: 85/95

Undertriage: 1 – Sensitivity = 1–85/95 or 10/95 = 10.5%

A further look into the characteristics among the undertriaged patients disclosed the following: Nearly all (nine) were men, with a median age of 54 years and median ISS of 16. Half of the patients were 60 years or older. With regard to the mechanism of injury, all of the patients experienced blunt trauma by fall from low heights (< 4 m). Eight patients had injuries located to a single anatomical region, while two patients had ≥2 body regions affected. A majority (seven) experienced injuries to head or neck.

Six patients were diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI) (See Appendix for definition). Six patients had Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS) ≤ 13, either in- or out of hospital. The patients’ Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) (see Appendix) ranged between 1 and 5. Seven patients scored 5, one scored 4. The remaining two patients died (GOS 1). The deceased were aged 79 and 86, with ISS 26 and 25 respectively, and both died from injuries to a single body region. See Table 5 for further details.
Table 5

Patient information

Patient

Age

Sex

Multi trauma

MOI

Injured body region

Pre-hospital GCS

In-hospital Systolic BP

In-hospital Diastolic BP

In-hospital Pulse

In-Hospital Respiratory Frequency

In-hospital GCS

ISS

GOS

Death

1

8

Male

No

Fall in children’s slide

Head

Data missing

102

54

78

20

15

16

5

No

2

20

Male

No

Fall in staircase

Abdomen

Data missing

137

87

92

16

15

16

5

No

3

30

Male

No

Fall from installation art, 2 m

Head

Data missing

107

55

76

20

13

16

5

No

4

31

Male

No

Presumed ground level fall.

Head

13

113

70

67

20

13

26

5

No

5

48

Male

Yes

Ground level fall

Head

Thorax

Extremity

13

113

70

69

20

13

16

5

No

6

60

Male

No

Fall from horseback

Abdomen

15

127

70

74

19

15

16

5

No

7

67

Male

Yes

Fall from ladder, 2–3 m

Thorax

Extremity

15

111

62

75

19

15

17

5

No

8

79

Male

No

Fall in staircase

Head

11

162

82

75

22

7

26

1

Yes

9

86

Male

No

Ground level fall

Neck

11

90

50

40

12

3

25

1

Yes

10

70

Female

No

Ground level fall

Head

8

150

80

80

15

7

16

4

No

We retrospectively applied the Norwegian “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients” as stated in the national trauma plan, on all the severely injured trauma patients in 2013 (patients with ISS ≥ 15, both undertriaged and correctly triaged) to evaluate the guidelines’ ability to identify severe trauma. Out of the 95 severely injured patients, the decision scheme identified 90 patients, showing a sensitivity of 95.0%. Deviation in vital signs was the highest-ranking criterion in 65 patients (68.0%). Among the undertriaged patients, six out of ten could have been identified as severe trauma based on vital sign deviation (reduced GCS). Anatomical injuries were the highest-ranking criterion in 21 patients (22.0%). Four (4.0%) were identified from MOI alone. None of the undertriaged patients could have been identified based on anatomic injury or MOI alone. By retrospectively applying the guidelines to the 2013 patients, the undertriage was reduced from 10.5 to 4.0%.

Discussion

Retrospective data from 2013 indicate 10.5% undertriage among trauma patients at HUH. Our data imply a rate of undertriage at HUH which is more than twice as high as national recommended benchmarks [19]. Scandinavian studies have reported similar or higher rates at other Trauma Centers [3235]. Studies from American Emergency Departments have found even higher undertriage, ranging from 40 to 70% [27, 36], demonstrating that assessing injury severity remains a significant challenge.

The high rate of undertriage among elderly trauma patients is also described elsewhere [2428, 37, 38], including in studies using “Field Triage of Injured Patients” [25, 28]. Our data shows a skewness towards high age, but the small sample size prevents us from making any firm conclusions. Moreover, some have pointed out that vital signs are less reliable to predict injury severity among patients > 65 years of age [37, 39]. Other studies have found increased mortality risk among elderly patients after ground level falls [40, 41]. Such MOI is not severe enough to activate trauma team, and the high-risk patients should therefore be identified by different means. Additionally, elderly injured patients raise unique challenges, such as potential for higher degree of comorbidity, use of anticoagulants, higher operative risk, and secondary medical complications. As a consequence, the trauma related mortality is higher in the geriatric population [42, 43]. To counter this, high age alone has been suggested as a criterion for trauma team activation [44, 45]. This is not current triage practice in Norway [19]. Still, age > 60 years is a criterion under “Special considerations” which should lower the threshold for trauma team activation and referral to regional trauma center if transport time < 45 min. Awareness of the special circumstances related to this patient group might aid the triage process and possibly reduce trauma mortality.

Several studies have found that undertriage regularly affects patients with head injury [24, 27, 33]. Xiang et al. reported that > 40% of the undertriaged trauma patient diagnosis were TBIs (See Appendix for definition). Our data showed the same trend, as more than half of the patients (6/10) were diagnosed with TBI. TBI leads to increased mortality and permanent disabilities [4650], making early access to proper care crucial.

Vital signs have been proven useful when identifying severe trauma [32, 5153] and GCS has shown to be a good predictor of mortality [5456]. Pearson and colleagues found that patients with TBI (See Appendix for definition) and a GCS score ≤ 13 were 17 times more likely to die compared to those with a higher GCS score, after controlling for age, gender, race, ISS and length of hospital stay [57]. Others have criticized GCS for its poor ability to predict isolated head injuries among older trauma patients [58].

Our findings suggest that the “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients” have a higher sensitivity (95%) than indicated by recent studies [25, 28]. The lowest sensitivity (66%) was reported in a prospective study from 2016 including 53,487 patients [28]. A contributing factor behind this discrepancy could be that our study population was sampled from a single regional trauma center only, excluding acute care hospitals in our health region. We are unable to determine to what extent severely injured patients were incorrectly transported to acute care hospitals with trauma function, without access to the relevant care. This means that our study cannot appraise the guidelines’ ability to identify patients suitable for direct transport or transfer to a regional trauma center, only their ability to identify in-hospital severe trauma and need for trauma team activation. Consequently, we can neither confirm nor disconfirm the findings of recent studies suggesting that transport to lower tiered hospitals (both trauma and non-trauma hospitals) contributes to the guidelines’ low sensitivity [25, 28].

Although the “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients” had a high total sensitivity (95.0%), only 68.0% of the severely injured patients were identified based on vital signs alterations, proving that vital signs alone were insufficient to identify severe trauma. However, the sensitivity improved substantially by combining vital sign deviations with defined anatomical injuries. Cook and colleges hypothesized that the use of vital signs and anatomical injury alone might be sufficient to identify need of trauma team [59]. MOI alone was able to identify only a small portion of severely injured patients. However, MOI inclusion was required to achieve the desired 95% sensitivity, which is in line with what prior studies have indicated. Based on our limited data, we recommend adherence to the new guidelines and propose implementing simple tools such as checklists to use both out-of- and in-hospital.

There are several limitations in our study. The most important one is the low sample size, due to both short study length, low trauma volume and the amount of severe trauma admitted to HUH per year. The findings should therefore be interpreted cautiously, bearing in mind the possible implications low sample size may have for their representativeness. Additionally, only patients admitted to a single trauma referral center was included. It is therefore possible that regional characteristics have influenced our trauma population. Only ISS score was used to evaluate trauma severity. This is recommended by both the national trauma plan and American College of Surgeons in quality assessment [18, 19], while being challenged by others for its low ability to predict outcome compared to other trauma scoring systems [6064]. Patient injuries were recorded using ICD-10 codes. Given the possibility of erroneous coding in the discharge papers, some undertriaged patients may have been missed. Lastly, each injury was assigned the closest corresponding AIS-code, a procedure that could reduce the accuracy of the individual injury descriptions.

Conclusion

Undertriage at HUH was 10.5%. Among the undertriaged, elderly patients with low level falls and subsequently isolated head and neck injuries dominated. With correct use of the modified version of “Guidelines for Field Triage of Injured Patients” the rate of undertriage could have been reduced by more than 50%, thereby keeping in line with the recommended < 5% undertriage. Our data indicate that the guidelines have a high sensitivity when identifying severely injured patients in need of trauma team activation.

Abbreviations

AIS: 

Abbreviated Injury Scale

GCS: 

Glasgow Coma Scale

GOS: 

Glasgow Outcome Score

HUH: 

Haukeland University Hospital

ICD-10: 

International Classification of Disease, 10th version

ICD-9: 

International Classification of Diseases, 9th version

ISS: 

Injury Severity Score

MOI: 

Mechanism of Injury

TBI: 

Traumatic Brain Injury

Declarations

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to it being part of the local trauma registry but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TN contributed to the manuscript with design, acquisition and analysis of data, drafting and revision. PO contributed to the manuscript with acquisition and analysis of data. AB contributed to the manuscript with idea and revision of the manuscript. KU contributed to the manuscript with idea, design, drafting and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Haukelandsveien 28, 5009 Bergen, Norway
(2)
Department of Clinical Medicine 1, Jonas Lies vei 65, 5021 Bergen, Norway
(3)
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Lies vei 65, 5021 Bergen, Norway
(4)
Regional Trauma Center, Surgical Department, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Lies vei 65, 5021 Bergen, Norway

References

  1. Mullins RJ, et al. Outcome of hospitalized injured patients after institution of a trauma system in an urban area. Jama. 1994;271(24):1919–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Mullins RJ, et al. Influence of a statewide trauma system on location of hospitalization and outcome of injured patients. J Trauma. 1996;40(4):536–45. discussion 545–6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Mullins RJ, et al. Preferential benefit of implementation of a statewide trauma system in one of two adjacent states. J Trauma. 1998;44(4):609–16. discussion 617View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. McDermott FT, Cordner SM. Victoria's trauma care system: national implications for quality improvement. Med J Aust. 2008;189(10):540–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerardo CJ, et al. The rapid impact on mortality rates of a dedicated care team including trauma and emergency physicians at an academic medical center. J Emerg Med. 2011;40(5):586–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Haas B, et al. Survival of the fittest: the hidden cost of undertriage of major trauma. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(6):804–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Haas B, et al. The mortality benefit of direct trauma center transport in a regional trauma system: a population-based analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(6):1510–5. discussion 1515–7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kilberg L, et al. Effectiveness of implementing a trauma triage system on outcome: a prospective evaluation. J Trauma. 1988;28(10):1493–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. MacKenzie EJ, et al. A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(4):366–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS. Improvement in outcome from trauma center care. Arch Surg. 1992;127(3):333–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pracht EE, et al. Survival advantage associated with treatment of injury at designated trauma centers: a bivariate probit model with instrumental variables. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(1):83–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Meldon SW, et al. Trauma in the very elderly: a community-based study of outcomes at trauma and nontrauma centers. J Trauma. 2002;52(1):79–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sampalis JS, et al. Trauma care regionalization: a process-outcome evaluation. J Trauma. 1999;46(4):565–79. discussion 579–81View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Elliott DC, Rodriguez A. Cost EFFECTIVENESS in trauma care. Surg Clin N Am. 1996;76(1):47–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Taheri PA, et al. The cost of trauma center readiness. Am J Surg. 2004;187(1):7–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Newgard CD, et al. The cost of overtriage: more than one-third of low-risk injured patients were taken to major trauma centers. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(9):1591–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Newgard CD, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of field trauma triage among injured adults served by emergency medical services. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(6):1125–37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Trauma, C.o. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient 2014. 2014; Available from: https://www.facs.org/~/media/files/quality%20programs/trauma/vrc%20resources/resources%20for%20optimal%20care.ashx [cited 20 May 2017]
  19. NKT-Traume, N.K.f.T. Nasjonal Traumeplan - Traumesystem i Norge 2016. Nasjonal Kompetansetjeneste for Traumatologi 2015; Available from: http://traumeplan.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Nasjonal-traumeplan-–-Traumesystem-i-Norge-2016.pdf [cited 15 May 2017]
  20. McCoy CE, Chakravarthy B, Lotfipour S. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: In conjunction with the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(1):69–76.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Sasser SM, et al. Adoption of the 2006 field triage decision scheme for injured patients. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(3):275–83.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Lerner EB. Studies Evaluating current field triage: 1966—2005. Prehospital Emergency Care. 2006;10(3):303–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Norcross ED, et al. Application of American College of Surgeons' field triage guidelines by pre-hospital personnel. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;181(6):539–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Vassar MJ, et al. Fractures in access to and assessment of trauma systems. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197(5):717–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Newgard CD, et al. A multisite assessment of the American College of Surgeons Committee on trauma field triage decision scheme for identifying seriously injured children and adults. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213(6):709–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakamura Y, et al. Evaluating age in the field triage of injured persons. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(3):335–45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Xiang H, et al. Undertriage of major trauma patients in the US emergency departments. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32(9):997–1004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Newgard, C.D., et al., Prospective validation of the National Field Triage Guidelines for identifying seriously injured persons. J Am Coll Surg, 2016. 222(2): p. 146–58.e2.Google Scholar
  29. Sentralbyrå, S. Folkmengde og befolkningsendringar, 1. januar 2016; Available from: https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/statistikker/folkemengde/aar-per-1-januar/2016-02-19?fane=tabell&sort=nummer&tabell=256001 [cited 1 Jan 2016]
  30. BAKER SP, et al. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and EVALUATING emergency care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1974;14(3):187–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Medicine, A.f.t.A.o.A. Abbreviated Injury Scale. Available from: https://www.aaam.org/abbreviated-injury-scale-ais/ [cited 7 April 2018].
  32. Rehn M, et al. Precision of field triage in patients brought to a trauma Centre after introducing trauma team activation guidelines. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009;17(1):1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Dehli T, et al. Evaluation of a university hospital trauma team activation protocol. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011;19:18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Dehli T, et al. Evaluation of a trauma team activation protocol revision: a prospective cohort study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24(1):105.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Kann SH, Hougaard K, Christensen EF. Evaluation of pre-hospital trauma triage criteria: a prospective study at a Danish level I trauma Centre. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51(9):1172–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mohan, D., et al., Assessing the feasibility of the american college of surgeons&#39; benchmarks for the triage of trauma patients. Arch Surg, 2011. 146(7): p. 786–792.Google Scholar
  37. Lehmann R, et al. The impact of advanced age on trauma triage decisions and outcomes: a statewide analysis. Am J Surg. 2009;197(5):571–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Staudenmayer KL, et al. Triage of elderly trauma patients: a population-based perspective. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(4):569–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Heffernan DS, et al. Normal presenting vital signs are unreliable in geriatric blunt trauma victims. J Trauma. 2010;69(4):813–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Spaniolas K, et al. Ground level falls are associated with significant mortality in elderly patients. J Trauma. 2010;69(4):821–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gerber LM, et al. Impact of falls on early mortality from severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Manage& Outcomes. 2009;3:9–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Champion HR, et al. Major trauma in geriatric patients. Am J Public Health. 1989;79(9):1278–82.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Hranjec T, et al. Mortality factors in geriatric blunt trauma patients: creation of a highly predictive statistical model for mortality using 50,765 consecutive elderly trauma admissions from the National Sample Project. Am Surg. 2012;78(12):1369–75.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Demetriades D, et al. Old age as a criterion for trauma team activation. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2001;51(4):754–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Demetriades D, et al. Effect on outcome of early intensive management of geriatric trauma patients. Br J Surg. 2002;89(10):1319–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Levin HS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography in relation to the neurobehavioral sequelae of mild and moderate head injuries. J Neurosurg. 1987;66(5):706–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Bergeson AG, et al. Clinical rating of cortical atrophy and cognitive correlates following traumatic brain injury. Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;18(4):509–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Masel BE, DeWitt DS. Traumatic brain injury: a disease process, not an event. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27(8):1529–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Corrigan JD, Hammond FM. Traumatic brain injury as a chronic health condition. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(6):1199–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Stocchetti N, Zanier ER. Chronic impact of traumatic brain injury on outcome and quality of life: a narrative review. Crit Care. 2016;20:148.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Henry MC, et al. Evaluation of American college of surgeons trauma triage criteria in a suburban and rural setting. Am J Emerg Med. 14(2):124–9.Google Scholar
  52. Franklin GA, et al. Prehospital hypotension as a valid Indicator of trauma team activation. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2000;48(6):1034–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Tinkoff GH, O'Connor RE. Validation of new trauma triage rules for trauma attending response to the emergency department. J Trauma. 2002;52(6):1153–8. discussion 1158-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Holcomb JB, et al. Manual vital signs reliably predict need for life-saving interventions in trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2005;59(4):821–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Timmons SD, et al. Using the abbreviated injury severity and Glasgow coma scale scores to predict 2-week mortality after traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2011;71(5):1172–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Strnad M, et al. Predictors of mortality and prehospital monitoring limitations in blunt trauma patients. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:983409.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Pearson WS, et al. A review of traumatic brain injury trauma center visits meeting physiologic criteria from the American College of Surgeons Committee on trauma/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention field triage guidelines. Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors. 2012;16(3):323–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Kehoe A, Rennie S, Smith JE. Glasgow coma scale is unreliable for the prediction of severe head injury in elderly trauma patients. Emerg Med J. 2015;32(8):613–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Cook CH, et al. Reducing overtriage without compromising outcomes in trauma patients. Arch Surg. 2001;136(7):752–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Wong TH, et al. Combining the new injury severity score with an anatomical polytrauma injury variable predicts mortality better than the new injury severity score and the injury severity score: a retrospective cohort study. Scandinavian journal of trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 2016;24(1):25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Paffrath T, Lefering R, Flohe S. How to define severely injured patients? -- an injury severity score (ISS) based approach alone is not sufficient. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 3):S64–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Frankema SP, et al. Comparison of current injury scales for survival chance estimation: an evaluation comparing the predictive performance of the ISS, NISS, and AP scores in a Dutch local trauma registration. J Trauma. 2005;58(3):596–604.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Salehi O, et al. A new injury severity score for predicting the length of hospital stay in multiple trauma patients. Trauma Monthly. 2016;21(1):e20349.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Soni KD, et al. Comparison of ISS, NISS, and RTS score as predictor of mortality in pediatric fall. Burns Trauma. 2017;5:25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement