Accuracy of Trauma on Scene Triage Screening Tool (Shock Index, Reverse Shock Index Glasgow Coma Scale and National Early Warning Score) to Predict the Severity of Emergency Department Triage: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

IF 1.5 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Open Access Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S403545
Chaiyaporn Yuksen, Chuenruthai Angkoontassaneeyarat, Sorawat Thananupappaisal, Thanakorn Laksanamapune, Malivan Phontabtim, Pamorn Namsanor
{"title":"Accuracy of Trauma on Scene Triage Screening Tool (Shock Index, Reverse Shock Index Glasgow Coma Scale and National Early Warning Score) to Predict the Severity of Emergency Department Triage: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Chaiyaporn Yuksen,&nbsp;Chuenruthai Angkoontassaneeyarat,&nbsp;Sorawat Thananupappaisal,&nbsp;Thanakorn Laksanamapune,&nbsp;Malivan Phontabtim,&nbsp;Pamorn Namsanor","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S403545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prehospital trauma care includes on-scene assessments, essential treatment, and facilitating transfer to an appropriate trauma center to deliver optimal care for trauma patients. While the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START), Revised Triage Sieve (rTS), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) tools are user-friendly in a prehospital setting, there is currently no standardized on-scene triage protocol in Thailand Emergency Medical Service (EMS). Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the precision of these tools (SI, rSIG, and NEWS) in predicting the severity of trauma patients who are transferred to the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a retrospective cross-sectional and diagnostic research conducted on trauma patients transferred by EMS to the ED of Ramathibodi Hospital, a university-affiliated super tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2015 to September 2022. We compared the on-scene triage tool (SI, rSIG, and NEWS) and ED triage tool (Emergency Severity Index) parameters, massive transfusion protocol (MTP), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission with the area under ROC (univariable analysis) and diagnostic odds ratio (multivariable logistic regression analysis). The optimal cut-off threshold for the best parameter was determined by selecting the value that produced the highest area under the ROC curve.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 218 patients were traumatic patients transported by EMS to the ED, out of which 161 were classified as ESI levels 1-2, while the remaining 57 patients were categorized as levels 3-5 on the ESI triage scale. We found that NEWS was a more accurate triage tool to discriminate the severity of trauma patients than rSIG and SI. The area under the ROC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.70-0.79) (OR 18.98, 95% CI 1.06-337.25), 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.17-18.09) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.52-0.65) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-1.62), respectively (P-value <0.001). The cut point of NEWS to discriminate ESI levels 1-2 and levels 3-5 was >6 points.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NEWS is the best on-scene triage screening tool to predict the severity at the emergency department, massive transfusion protocol (MTP), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission compared with other triage tools SI and rSIG.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b8/5d/oaem-15-79.PMC10039710.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S403545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Prehospital trauma care includes on-scene assessments, essential treatment, and facilitating transfer to an appropriate trauma center to deliver optimal care for trauma patients. While the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START), Revised Triage Sieve (rTS), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) tools are user-friendly in a prehospital setting, there is currently no standardized on-scene triage protocol in Thailand Emergency Medical Service (EMS). Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the precision of these tools (SI, rSIG, and NEWS) in predicting the severity of trauma patients who are transferred to the emergency department (ED).

Methods: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional and diagnostic research conducted on trauma patients transferred by EMS to the ED of Ramathibodi Hospital, a university-affiliated super tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2015 to September 2022. We compared the on-scene triage tool (SI, rSIG, and NEWS) and ED triage tool (Emergency Severity Index) parameters, massive transfusion protocol (MTP), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission with the area under ROC (univariable analysis) and diagnostic odds ratio (multivariable logistic regression analysis). The optimal cut-off threshold for the best parameter was determined by selecting the value that produced the highest area under the ROC curve.

Results: A total of 218 patients were traumatic patients transported by EMS to the ED, out of which 161 were classified as ESI levels 1-2, while the remaining 57 patients were categorized as levels 3-5 on the ESI triage scale. We found that NEWS was a more accurate triage tool to discriminate the severity of trauma patients than rSIG and SI. The area under the ROC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.70-0.79) (OR 18.98, 95% CI 1.06-337.25), 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.17-18.09) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.52-0.65) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-1.62), respectively (P-value <0.001). The cut point of NEWS to discriminate ESI levels 1-2 and levels 3-5 was >6 points.

Conclusion: NEWS is the best on-scene triage screening tool to predict the severity at the emergency department, massive transfusion protocol (MTP), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission compared with other triage tools SI and rSIG.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
创伤现场分诊筛查工具(休克指数、逆休克指数格拉斯哥昏迷量表和国家早期预警评分)预测急诊科分诊严重程度的准确性:一项回顾性横断面研究
院前创伤护理包括现场评估、基本治疗和促进转移到适当的创伤中心,为创伤患者提供最佳护理。虽然简单分诊和快速治疗(START)、修订分诊筛(rTS)和国家预警评分(NEWS)工具在院前环境中是用户友好的,但泰国紧急医疗服务(EMS)目前没有标准化的现场分诊协议。因此,本研究旨在评估这些工具(SI、rSIG和NEWS)在预测转至急诊科(ED)的创伤患者严重程度方面的准确性。方法:本研究对2015年1月至2022年9月泰国曼谷大学附属三级医院Ramathibodi医院急诊急诊急诊急诊的创伤患者进行回顾性横断面和诊断研究。我们比较了现场分诊工具(SI、rSIG和NEWS)和急诊科分诊工具(急诊严重程度指数)参数、大量输血方案(MTP)和重症监护病房(ICU)入院与ROC下面积(单变量分析)和诊断优势比(多变量logistic回归分析)。通过选择在ROC曲线下产生最大面积的值来确定最佳参数的最佳截止阈值。结果:218例急诊创伤患者均为EMS转运至急诊科,其中ESI 1-2级161例,其余57例为ESI 3-5级。我们发现NEWS是一种比rSIG和SI更准确的区分创伤患者严重程度的分类工具。ROC下面积分别为0.74 (95% CI 0.70-0.79) (OR 18.98, 95% CI 1.06-337.25)、0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.17-18.09)和0.58 (95% CI 0.52-0.65) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-1.62) (p值6点)。结论:与其他分诊工具SI和rSIG相比,NEWS是预测急诊科严重程度、大量输血方案(MTP)和重症监护病房(ICU)入院的最佳现场分诊筛查工具。
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
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Open Access Emergency Medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Utility of Common Bile Duct Identification on Biliary Ultrasound in Emergency Department Patients. Effect of a Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Driven vs Standard Diagnostic Pathway on 24-Hour Hospital Stay in Emergency Department Patients with Dyspnea-Protocol for A Randomized Controlled Trial. Accuracy of FAST-ED for Assessment Large Vessel Occlusion of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Emergency Department. Prehospital Emergency Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey of First-Aid Preparedness Among Layperson First Responders in Northern Uganda. Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Alvarado Score and Abdominal Ultrasound for Acute Appendicitis: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.
×
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