Skip to main content

Table 2 Performance characteristics of prehospital triage tools from a subset of the highest quality articles

From: Prehospital triage tools across the world: a scoping review of the published literature

Type

Study

Tool name

Pop

Primary research question

Major findings

General

Meisel 2009

PEAR

A

To validate PEAR for predicting hospital admission using routinely collected out-of-hospital information

AUC for combined cohort was 0.83 for all admissions and 0.72 for ICU admissions. n = 1102

Hoikka 2018

NEWS

All

To examine the accuracy of the prehospitally implemented NEWS in predicting 1-day and 30-day mortalities in an unselected EMS population

The high-risk NEWS group (score ≥ 7) had sensitivities for 1-day and 30-day mortalities of 0.801 (CI 0.74–0.86) and 0.42 (CI 0.38–0.47), respectively. n = 12,426

Leeies 2017

CTAS

A

To prospectively evaluate CTAS interrater reliability between EMS providers and ED triage nurses

Interrater reliability κw = 0.437 (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.421–0.452). n = 14,378

Magnusson 2019

RETTS-p

P

To evaluate agreement between the EMS field assessment using RETTS-p and the hospital diagnosis of emergent condition

Sn 66.7% and Sp 67.0%, with under-triage rate 33%, over-triage rate 33.3%. n = 716

Stroke

Helwig 2019

LAMS

A

To compare LAMS to Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) in accurately triaging patients to the appropriate stroke hospital (CSC vs PSC)

An accurate triage decision was reached for 69.8% in the LAMS group and 100% in the MSU group (difference, 30.2%; 95% CI, 17.8%-42.5%; P < 0.001). n = 116

Carrera 2019

RACE

A

To revalidate RACE after its region-wide implementation in Catalonia

RACE ≥ 5 showed Sn 84%, Sp 60%, AUC 0.77, for detecting LVO. N = 1822

Jumaa 2019

RACE

A

To report performance characteristics of RACE for LVO eligible for mechanical thrombectomy

A RACE cut-off point of ≥ 5 had Sn 77%, Sp 75%, PPV 0.97, NPV 0.25, accuracy 75.3% (95%CI 73.1–77.4). n = 1147

Trauma triage

Brown 2011

FTDS

A

To analyze whether trauma center need was accurately predicted solely by the physiologic (PHY) and anatomic (ANA) criteria of the FTDS

Application of only the PHY and ANA criteria identifies trauma center need with Sn 49%, Sp 78% and undertriage rate of 51%. Mechanism of injury and special considerations criteria play an important role in minimizing under-triage rates. n = 1,086,764

Newgard 2011

FTDS

All

To evaluate diagnostic performance of FTDS for identifying major trauma (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16)

Sn 85.8% (95% CI 85.0–86.6) and Sp 68.7% (95% CI 68.4–68.9). n = 122,345

Barnett 2013

FTDS

All

To describe the use of field triage criteria by EMS personnel in the Western United States

The three most common criteria cited (of 33 in use) were EMS provider judgment, age < 5 or > 55 years, and GCS < 14. n = 46,414

Davidson 2014

FTDS

All

To determine the likelihood of serious trauma based on vehicle damage sustained in a crash as described in Step 3 of the FTDS

Crash characteristics that predict severe injury included intrusion of greater than 12 inches (PPV of 10.4%; 95% CI, 9.5–11.3) and steering wheel collapse (PPV of 25.7%; 95% CI, 23.0–28.4%). n = 85,761

Lerner 2017

FTDS

P

To determine the change in under- and over-triage rates when the 2011 Field Triage Guidelines are compared to the 2006 and 1999 versions

Applying the 1999, 2006, or 2011 Guidelines to the EMS interview data the over-triage rate was 32.6%, 27.9%, and 28.0%, respectively. The under-triage rate was 26.5%, 35.1%, and 34.8%, respectively. The 2011 Guidelines resulted in an 8.2% (95% CI 0.6–15.9%) absolute increase in under-triage and a 4.6% (95% CI 2.8–6.3%) decrease in over-triage compared to 1999 Guidelines. n = 5594

Ardolino 2015

PTS

P

To assess performance of English pediatric prehospital trauma triage tools

East Midlands (18%), North West (21%) and Northern (19%) tools had the best over-triage rates. All had under-triage rates of 0%. n = 2934

Cox 2012

VSTTC

A

To evaluate performance of the Victorian prehospital trauma triage criteria in discriminating for major trauma

Sn 95.3%, Sp 62.7%, under-triage rate 4.7%, and over-triage rate 37.3% for major trauma. n = 45,332

vanLaarhoven 2014

Dutch

A

To evaluate the protocol's ability to identify severely injured adult trauma patients (ISS >  = 16)

Sn 89.1%, Sp 60.5%, PPV 26.5%, NPV 97.2%, undertriage rate 10.9%, overtriage rate 39.5%. n = 1607

Trauma for helicopter EMS

Brown 2012

FTDS

All

To determine which FTDS criteria can be used by field EMS providers to predict which trauma patients would benefit from helicopter transport

Odds of increased survival to discharge by helicopter transport found in following conditions: GCS < 14 (aOR 1.22); respiratory rate < 10 or > 29 (aOR 1.32); penetrating injury (aOR 1.40), age > 55 (aoR 1.15). n = 258,387

Brown 2017

AMPT

A

To validate the effectiveness of the AMPT score to identify patients with a survival benefit from helicopter EMS (HEMS)

For AMPT score ≥ 2, HEMS increases odds of in-hospital survival by 6.7% (ARR 1.067; 95% CI 1.040–1.083, p < 0.001). n = 222,827

Traumatic brain injury

Fuller 2016

HITS-NS

A

To determine the accuracy of the HITS-NS triage rule for identifying patients with significant TBI

Sn 28.3% and Sp 94.4% for significant TBI. n = 3828

  1. PEAR, Philadelphia EMS Admission Rule; NEWS, National Early Warning Score; CTAS, Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale; RETTS-p, Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System-pediatrics; LAMS, Los Angeles Motor Scale; RACE, Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation; FTDS, Field Triage Decision Scheme; PTS, Pediatric trauma score, pediatric triage tape, East Midlands, London, Northwest, Northern, Southwest London, Wessex tools; VSTTC, Victorian state prehospital trauma triage criteria; Dutch, Dutch Field Triage Protocol; AMPT, Air Medical Prehospital Triage; HITS-NS, Head Injury Transportation Straight to Neurosurgery; Pop, population; A, Adult; P-Pediatric; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; Sn, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value