Accuracy of the Norwegian trauma protocol. An observational population study from South-Western Norway

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2024.112063
Guro Bjørke , Ingvild Dalen , Kenneth Thorsen
{"title":"Accuracy of the Norwegian trauma protocol. An observational population study from South-Western Norway","authors":"Guro Bjørke ,&nbsp;Ingvild Dalen ,&nbsp;Kenneth Thorsen","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.112063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Norwegian trauma plan was established in 2007 and renewed in 2017 defining national trauma team activation (TTA) criteria. Norwegian studies validating the performance of previous TTA protocols have found overtriage and undertriage to be out of line with the quality indicators set in the national trauma plan, but studies have not yet been published validating the new TTA protocol.</div></div><div><h3>Material and method</h3><div>This was a registry study of a prospectively maintained database in the period from 01/01/2018 to 12/31/2020. Data were collected from the Trauma Registry including prehospital documents. A total of 1519 patients were eligible, of which 95 were excluded, yielding a study population of 1424 patients. All patients were evaluated for a total of 29 criteria in four criteria groups: <em>1 Physiology, 2 Anatomical injury, 3 Mechanism of injury</em>, and <em>4 Special considerations</em>. Overtriage, undertriage, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were estimated for the current and alternative TTA protocols, criteria groups, and single criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The current Norwegian TTA protocol involving criteria groups 1–3 had a total sensitivity of 84.8 %, hence an undertriage of 15.2 % (95 % confidence interval, 11.1–20.3 %), and PPV of 19.2 % hence an overtriage of 80.8 % (78.3–83.1 %). Patients 60 years and older had an undertriage of 21.6 %, whilst patients under 60 years of age had an undertriage of 11.2 %. A TTA protocol including criteria group 4 as well yielded a lower undertriage (5.6 %) without significantly increasing overtriage (81.7 %), and a TTA protocol with criteria group 4 replacing group 3 yielded an undertriage of 7.4 % and an overtriage of 81.0 %. Criteria group <em>3 Mechanism of injury</em> was the criteria group with the most overtriage, at 95 %. Patients that did not meet any criteria had a similar overtriage of 94 %.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both overtriage and undertriage are out of line with the goals set in the Norwegian trauma plan. Undertriage is often caused by older patients that do not fulfill the trauma criteria in the current TTA protocol. Mechanism of injury increases overtriage but does not reduce undertriage. The TTA protocol could be improved by changing the composition of criteria groups, removal of single criteria with low PPV, and by better compliance to the existing criteria.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"56 1","pages":"Article 112063"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324008076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Norwegian trauma plan was established in 2007 and renewed in 2017 defining national trauma team activation (TTA) criteria. Norwegian studies validating the performance of previous TTA protocols have found overtriage and undertriage to be out of line with the quality indicators set in the national trauma plan, but studies have not yet been published validating the new TTA protocol.

Material and method

This was a registry study of a prospectively maintained database in the period from 01/01/2018 to 12/31/2020. Data were collected from the Trauma Registry including prehospital documents. A total of 1519 patients were eligible, of which 95 were excluded, yielding a study population of 1424 patients. All patients were evaluated for a total of 29 criteria in four criteria groups: 1 Physiology, 2 Anatomical injury, 3 Mechanism of injury, and 4 Special considerations. Overtriage, undertriage, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were estimated for the current and alternative TTA protocols, criteria groups, and single criteria.

Results

The current Norwegian TTA protocol involving criteria groups 1–3 had a total sensitivity of 84.8 %, hence an undertriage of 15.2 % (95 % confidence interval, 11.1–20.3 %), and PPV of 19.2 % hence an overtriage of 80.8 % (78.3–83.1 %). Patients 60 years and older had an undertriage of 21.6 %, whilst patients under 60 years of age had an undertriage of 11.2 %. A TTA protocol including criteria group 4 as well yielded a lower undertriage (5.6 %) without significantly increasing overtriage (81.7 %), and a TTA protocol with criteria group 4 replacing group 3 yielded an undertriage of 7.4 % and an overtriage of 81.0 %. Criteria group 3 Mechanism of injury was the criteria group with the most overtriage, at 95 %. Patients that did not meet any criteria had a similar overtriage of 94 %.

Conclusion

Both overtriage and undertriage are out of line with the goals set in the Norwegian trauma plan. Undertriage is often caused by older patients that do not fulfill the trauma criteria in the current TTA protocol. Mechanism of injury increases overtriage but does not reduce undertriage. The TTA protocol could be improved by changing the composition of criteria groups, removal of single criteria with low PPV, and by better compliance to the existing criteria.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
挪威创伤治疗方案的准确性。一项来自挪威西南部的观察性人口研究。
背景:挪威创伤计划于2007年建立,并于2017年更新,确定了国家创伤小组激活(TTA)标准。挪威的研究证实了以前的诊断辅助治疗方案的表现,发现过度分类和分类不足不符合国家创伤计划中设定的质量指标,但尚未发表的研究证实了新的诊断辅助治疗方案。材料和方法:本研究是对2018年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间前瞻性维护的数据库进行注册研究。数据收集自创伤登记处,包括院前文件。共有1519例患者符合条件,其中95例被排除,研究人群为1424例患者。所有患者分为4个标准组,共29项标准进行评估:1生理,2解剖损伤,3损伤机制,4特殊考虑。评估了当前和备选TTA方案、标准组和单一标准的过度分类、分类不足、敏感性和阳性预测值(PPV)。结果:目前挪威TTA方案涉及标准组1-3,总敏感性为84.8%,因此分类不足为15.2%(95%置信区间,11.1- 20.3%),PPV为19.2%,因此分类过度为80.8%(78.3- 83.1%)。60岁及以上患者的分类不足率为21.6%,而60岁以下患者的分类不足率为11.2%。包括第4组标准的TTA方案也产生了较低的分类不足(5.6%),但没有显著增加过度分类(81.7%),而用第4组标准取代第3组的TTA方案产生了7.4%的分类不足和81.0%的过度分类。损伤机制是过度分类最多的标准组,占95%。不符合任何标准的患者有类似的94%的过度分类。结论:分诊过多和分诊不足均不符合挪威创伤计划的目标。分类不足通常是由于老年患者不符合当前TTA协议中的创伤标准。损伤机制增加了过度分类,但不减少分类不足。可以通过改变标准组的组成、删除PPV低的单一标准以及更好地遵守现有标准来改进TTA协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
期刊最新文献
Global, regional, and national burdens of road injuries from 1990 to 2021: Findings from the 2021 Global Burden of Disease Study Incidence of venous thromboembolism following achilles tendon rupture. Data from the UK foot and ankle thrombo-embolism (UK-FATE) audit A nurse-led approach to enhancing foot and ankle tissue repair: A study using fibroblast growth factor and skin flap technique Effects of acute intermittent hypoxia on muscle strength in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review of randomized trials Damage control orthopedics versus early total care of femur fracture in a national cohort of pediatric patients with traumatic brain injury
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1