Performance of a provincial prehospital trauma triage protocol: A retrospective audit

Abstract

Objective

To assess the accuracy of a five-step prehospital trauma triage protocol (Échelle québécoise de triage préhospitalier en traumatologie (EQTPT)) to identify patients requiring urgent and specialized in-hospital trauma care in the Capitale-Nationale region – Québec.

Methods

The medical records of trauma patients transported by ambulance to one of the five participating emergency departments (EDs) between November 2016 and March 2017 were reviewed. Our primary outcome was the need for one of the following urgent and specialized trauma care: endotracheal intubation in the ED, administration of ≥ 2 blood products in the ED, angioembolization or surgery (excluding single limb surgery) < 24 h and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital trauma-related death.

Results

A total of 902 patients were included. The median age was 63 (interquartile range (IQR) 51) and 494 (54.8%) were female. The main trauma mechanism was falls (n = 592), followed by motor vehicle accidents (n = 201). Eighty-two (9.1%) patients required at least one urgent and specialized trauma care. Of those, 44 (53.6%) were identified as requiring transport to a level one trauma centre (steps 1–3), 16 were identified as requiring transport to a centre with a lower level of trauma designation (steps 4–5) while 22 (26.8%) did not meet any of the EQTPT criteria. For steps 1 to 3, the sensitivity was 53.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 42.9–64.4) and the specificity was 81.7% (95% CI 79.1–84.4) in identifying patients requiring specialized trauma care.

Conclusion

The EQTPT lacked sensitivity and was poorly specific to identify trauma patients who need specialized in-hospital trauma care.

Keywords

Trauma injuries prehospital triage outcomes

Background

Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the past decades, trauma systems integrating a continuum of prehospital and in-hospital care have improved outcomes for severely injured patients.^1–6 Hence, trauma-related in-hospital mortality has decreased significantly. However, the proportion of deaths occurring in the prehospital setting is increasing and now represents close to 75% of all trauma-related deaths.⁷ Studies focusing on the early prehospital and emergency department (ED) care of trauma patients are therefore essential to improve patient outcomes.^4,8,9

Prehospital trauma triage protocols aiming to identify severely injured patients who require urgent and specialized trauma care are a cornerstone of initial trauma management.¹⁰ Field triage of injured patients significantly impacts patient and system-related outcomes. For severely injured patients, prompt access to specialized trauma care reduces mortality, whereas underestimating the severity of a patient's injuries and needs is a major contributor to avoidable mortality.^1,10,11 On the other hand, as a high proportion of trauma patients sustain only minor injuries, a systematic overestimation of the severity of their injuries could contribute to major trauma centre overcrowding and increased healthcare expenditures.¹² Unfortunately, current prehospital trauma triage protocols lack sensitivity and specificity in identifying severely injured patients and their acute trauma care needs.^13–15 The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) guidelines for field triage recommend a maximum undertriage proportion of 5% and a 35% proportion of overtriage.¹⁶ However, a recent systematic review has shown that currently available prehospital trauma triage protocols do not meet these benchmarks.¹⁷

In 2016, the Échelle québécoise de triage préhospitalier en traumatologie (EQTPT), a prehospital trauma triage protocol identifying patients who require direct transportation to a trauma centre, was implemented in the province of Quebec, Canada. This five-step protocol was adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - ACSCOT protocol.¹⁶ In the Capitale-Nationale region – Québec (approximately 730,000 inhabitants), trauma care is regionalized with a prehospital bypass system allowing the transportation of trauma patients from the field directly to a level one trauma centre. Therefore, a patient presenting with at least one criterion from steps 1, 2 or 3 of the triage protocol (Supplemental Figure 1) should be transported to a level one trauma centre if transport time is expected to be < 60 min. If a patient has at least one criterion from steps 4 or 5, they can be transported to any ED (except for the Heart and Lung Institute). Prehospital care is almost exclusively provided by paramedics with basic life support skills. For trauma patients, prehospital interventions are protocol-driven and are limited to supraglottic device insertion,¹⁸ application of spinal restriction of motion devices and limb immobilization for suspected fractures.

The accuracy of our provincial triage protocol in identifying patients who require urgent and specialized trauma care has yet to be evaluated in the general trauma population. Therefore, this study aims to assess the EQTPT's accuracy in identifying patients who require urgent and specialized in-hospital trauma care in the Capitale-Nationale region – Québec. The secondary objectives were to assess the proportions of overtriage and undertriage associated with this protocol.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective audit of prehospital and in-hospital medical charts. Patients were identified using regional administrative prehospital databases. Prehospital and in-hospital data from the CHU de Québec (which includes five of the six major EDs within our region and receives approximately 80% of all ED consultations in Quebec City) were combined.

Ethics

This project was approved by the CHU de Québec – Université Laval Research Ethics Board. Our results are reported as per the EQUATOR Network STROBE reporting guidelines.¹⁹

Study population

Patients were included if they were transported by ambulance to one of the CHU de Québec EDs between November 2016 and March 2017 after having sustained a trauma for which an emergency medical services (EMS) intervention was required.

Patients with a documented terminal disease (prognosis < 6 months) and those who were misclassified (no history of trauma) were excluded after reviewing the patient’s medical record.

Outcome measures

Following a literature review, the study's steering committee, which included local trauma experts, agreed upon a list of six urgent and specialized trauma interventions (primary outcomes): (1) endotracheal intubation in the ED, (2) administration of ≥ 2 blood products in the ED, (3) angioembolization for a pelvic, spleen, hepatic and/or renal injury within 24 h of ED arrival, (4) urgent surgery within 24 h of ED arrival (excluding an orthopaedic surgery for one limb only), (5) initial admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or intermediate care unit (IMCU) and (6) trauma-related deaths (in the ED or during the hospitalization). It was considered that patients requiring these interventions should be transported directly to a level one trauma centre and therefore, should be identified by the EQTPT protocol.

Our secondary outcomes were the proportion of over and undertriage. Overtriage was defined as a patient identified by one of the five steps of the EQTPT who did not receive any urgent and specialized trauma care. Undertriage was defined as a patient who required urgent and specialized trauma care but did not meet any of the EQTPT criteria. Furthermore, we measured over and undertriage proportions specifically for steps 1, 2 and 3, as those steps determined whether the patient was transferred to the level one trauma centre. Overtriage was thus defined as a patient who fulfilled at least one of the EQTPT's steps 1, 2 or 3 criteria, but did not require any specialized trauma care, while undertriage corresponded to a patient without any criteria in the first three steps but who ultimately required specialized trauma care.

Data extraction

Trained research assistants and medical students collected data using a standardized form. Sociodemographic data, trauma mechanism and the EQTPT criteria used to determine the patient's destination hospital were extracted from the prehospital record. In-hospital interventions, orientation, final diagnosis, ED and in-hospital length-of-stay (LOS) were extracted from the hospital record. All data pertaining to patients who underwent at least one specialized trauma intervention were reviewed by an experienced emergency physician and trauma team leader (EM).

Statistical analysis

We conducted a series of descriptive statistics (median, interquartile range (IQR)), frequencies and proportions). The sensitivity and specificity were computed with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were performed using Excel™ and Statistical Analysis System software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA, v. 9.4).

Results

A total of 902 patients were included in our analyses. The median age was 63 (IQR 51) years, and 54.8% were female (Table 1). The main trauma mechanism was falls (65.6%), followed by motor vehicle accidents (22.5%); those transported directly to a level one trauma centre accounted for 40.7% of our patients. Most patients (71.9%) were discharged home from the ED, while 23.9% were admitted to the hospital (Table 2). There were 13 trauma-related deaths in our cohort, of which 10 were due to a fall from a standing position.

Table 1.

Prehospital characteristics of the 902 patients included in the study.

Patients’ characteristics
	N (%)
Age
Median (IQR)	63 (51)
≥ 65 years old	428 (47.5)
Sex, female	494 (54.8)
Documented cognitive impairment	148 (16.4)
Anticoagulant medication	103 (11.4)
Antiplatelet medication	139 (15.4)
Information about the injury
	N (%)
Mechanism of injury
Motor vehicle collision	203 (22.5)
Pedestrian	25 (2.8)
Fall adult <6m	545 (60.4)
Fall adult ≥6m	10 (1.1)
Fall child ≥3m	34 (3.8)
Fall child <3m	3 (0.3)
Cyclist	17 (1.9)
Penetrating trauma	13 (1.4)
Other blunt injury	35 (3.9)
Other	17 (1.9)
Initial destination
Transport to a level one trauma centre	367 (40.7)
Transport to other hospitals	535 (59.3)
EQTPT
Step 1	87 (9.6)
Step 2	38 (4.2)
Step 3	69 (7.6)
Step 4	206 (15.8)
Step 5	145 (16.1)
No EQTPT criteria	357 (39.6)
Patients physiological data
	Median [IQR]
Glasgow Coma Scale score
Initial	15 [15;15]
Worst	15 [15;15]
Heart rate
Initial	85 [73;99]
Worst	87 [76;101]
Respiratory rate
Initial	18 [16;20]
Worst	18 [16;20]
Systolic blood pressure
Initial	130 [148;179]
Worst	120 [108;138]

Motor vehicle collision includes motorbike, off-road vehicle, snowmobile, camion and penetrating trauma includes firearm and bladed weapon.

IQR: interquartile range; EQTPT: Quebec Prehospital Trauma Triage Scale.

Table 2.

Hospital characteristics of the 902 patients included in the study.

Hospital ED triage (CTAS)
	N (%)
P1	54 (5.9)
P2	230 (25.5)
P3	315 (34.9)
P4	293 (34.5)
P5	8 (0.9)
Patient initial orientation
Ambulatory	167 (18.5)
Resuscitation room	85 (9.4)
Stretcher	650 (72.1)
Imaging investigation
Simple X-ray	350 (38.8)
Selective CT scan	299 (33.2)
Full body CT scan	43 (4.8)
No imaging performed	210 (23.3)
Emergency department (ED) disposition
Discharge home	649 (71.9)
Admission to a hospital ward	148 (16.4)
Operating room	37 (4.1)
ICU or IMCU admission	31 (3.4)
Transfer to another hospital	19 (2.1)
Other	15 (1.7)
Leave before seeing a physician	3 (0.3)
Destination after hospital stay
Home	807 (89.5)
Death	30 (3.3)
Rehabilitation center	19 (2.1)
Inter-hospital transfer	14 (1.6)
Relocation to a nursing home	12 (1.3)
Long-term care	11 (1.2)
Convalescence center	9 (1.0)
Diagnosis
Orthopaedic fracture	138 (15.3)
Head trauma	137 (15.2)
Spine fracture	37 (4.1)
Pelvis fracture	22 (2.4)
Thoracic trauma	19 (2.1)
Medullary injury	7 (0.8)
Abdominal trauma	6 (0.7)
Intervention
Orthopaedic surgery	86 (9.5)
Neurosurgery	12 (1.3)
Abdominal surgery	3 (0.3)
Length of stay (days)
	Mean ± SD
Hospital (n = 216)	15.5 ± 17.5
ICU or IMCU (n = 31)	19.8 ± 23.9

CT: computed tomography; CTAS: Canadian Triage Acuity Scale; ICU: intensive care unit; IMCU: intermediate care unit.

Primary outcome

Of the 902 included patients, 555 (61.5%) met at least one of the trauma triage protocol criteria, and 194 (21.5%) met at least one criterion from the first three steps of the protocol. Step 4 (special considerations) included the most patients with 206 (22.8%) of the whole cohort.

A total of 82 patients (9.1%) required urgent and specialized trauma care. Urgent surgery (58.5%) and admission to ICU or IMCU (57.3%; ICU: 23, IMCU: 24) were the most frequent. Only one massive transfusion protocol was activated among the seven patients who received at least two blood products in the ED. Table 3 shows the interventions and patient outcomes of our population.

Table 3.

Description of urgent and specialized trauma interventions.

Intervention	Patients who required urgent and specialized trauma interventions (n = 82)
	N (% of those requiring interventions/% of all patients (902))
Endotracheal intubation in the ED	14 (17.1/1.6)
≥2 blood products administered in the ED	7 (8.5/0.8)
Surgery < 24 h of ED arrival (excluding single limb orthopaedic surgery)	48 (58.2/5.3)
Angioembolization < 24 h of arrival in ED	1 (1.2/0.1)
ICU or IMCU admission	47 (57.3/5.2)
Death following trauma	13 (15.9/1.4)

ED: emergency department; ICU: intensive care unit; IMCU: intermediate care unit.

Table 4.

Patient triage according to EQTPT steps.

	All patients (n = 902)	Patients with ≥ one primary outcome (n = 82)
	N (%)	N (%)
Step 1	87 (9.6)	27 (32.9)
Step 2	38 (4.2)	12 (14.6)
Step 3	69 (7.6)	5 (6.1)
Step 4	206 (22.8)	13 (15.8)
Step 5	145 (16.1)	3 (3.6)
Unclassified	357 (39.6)	22 (26.8)

EQTPT: Quebec Prehospital Trauma Triage Scale.

The first EQTPT step identified 32.9% of patients requiring specialized trauma care. When using the first three steps only, the protocol identified 53.7% of patients and 72.9% when using all five steps. Finally, 22 patients (26.8%) who required in-hospital specialized trauma care were not identified by any of the triage protocol's steps (Table 4).

Secondary outcomes

A total of 150 patients met at least one criterion from steps 1 to 3 but ultimately did not require specialized trauma care. For those steps, the sensitivity was 53.7% (95% CI: 42.9–64.4) and the specificity was 81.7% (95% CI: 79.1–84.4). The overtriage proportion was 18.3% while the undertriage was 46.3%.

When using all five steps of the protocol, the overall sensitivity was 73.2% (95% CI: 63.6–82.8), and the specificity was 40.9% (95% CI: 37.5–44.2), with an overtriage proportion of 59.1% and an undertriage of 26.8%.

Discussion

This is the first study investigating the accuracy of our field trauma triage protocol in a general trauma population since its implementation in 2016. Accurate trauma triage is a cornerstone of an efficient trauma system. The overarching objective of a triage protocol is to send the right patient quickly to the appropriate place based on their needs. The EQTPT protocol accurately identified 53.7% of patients needing specialized care in a level one trauma centre.

The EQTPT was based on the CDC-ACSCOT protocol and was adapted to the needs of the Quebec trauma population. Indeed, the CDC-ACSCOT protocol was created and implemented in the United States, where the proportion of penetrating trauma is higher (compared to less than 3.5% in the province of Quebec²⁰ and only 1.4% in our study). Given the differences in demographics and trauma mechanisms, an American triage protocol might not be suited to our trauma population; hence, the differences between the two protocols include some minor adjustments (units of measure) and the addition of a fifth step. Like other available prehospital trauma triage protocols,¹⁷ the overall EQTPT does not meet the benchmarks set by the CDC-ACSCOT.²¹ The consequences of undertriage are well documented and include delayed treatment, missed injuries and poor functional outcome.^3,22 The latest version of the CDC-ACSCOT has a reported 77% specificity and a 72% sensitivity.²³

When considering the accuracy of the EQTPT in identifying patients who require specialized trauma care, steps 1 to 3 obtained an 18.3% overtriage proportion and 46.3% undertriage. These three steps performed fairly well with regard to the recommended CDC-ACSCOT overtriage proportions. However, several patients who would have required acute trauma care were missed, resulting in a proportion of undertriage exceeding the recommended 5%. The first two steps of the CDC-ACSCOT have a reported undertriage of 51% and an overtriage of 22%,²⁴ which is similar to the results from the first three steps of the EQTPT. Therefore, there is a clear need to improve the current prehospital triage protocols for trauma patients. Modifying a few EQTPT criteria could likely improve its accuracy. Older adults are at higher risk of undertriage²⁵ than younger patients. In a study limited to older adults, we have previously reported that the EQTPT's sensitivity is low in patients > 65 years old and only 30% to identify patients ≥ 75 years old requiring specialized trauma care.²⁶ Hence, including senior-friendly modifiers could improve the protocol's sensitivity for this age group.²⁷ Furthermore, identifying head-injured patients can also be challenging in the prehospital setting, and a recent systematic review reported that prehospital trauma triage protocols lack sensitivity in identifying those patients.²⁸ The EQTPT includes four criteria pertaining to head injury (step 1: GCS ≤ 13; step 2: skull fracture; step 4: anticoagulation; step 5: traumatic brain injury with vomiting, loss of consciousness or post-traumatic amnesia). Additional criteria, such as external signs of head trauma or antiplatelet medications, have been suggested to improve the sensitivity of triage tools.^29,30

Historically, the performance of prehospital trauma triage protocols was solely based on their capacity to distinguish severely injured patients from those who sustained minor injuries. However, the definition of severe trauma varies widely in the literature, and up to 14 indicators have been described.³¹ Most prior studies defined severe trauma as an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15.³² Nevertheless, an evaluation based on anatomic severity only (i.e. ISS score) is suboptimal because it poorly relates to the trauma resources needs, especially in acute settings.³³ For this reason, we have decided to use a consensus-based and more restrictive outcome definition to capture patients with higher acute trauma resource needs. Furthermore, studies on prehospital trauma triage protocols are often limited to patients transported to a centre with a higher level of trauma care designation. As most trauma patients only sustain minor injuries, we chose to include all trauma patients within one region to decrease the risk of selection bias.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. First, data were collected following the EQTPT implementation in 2016 and 2017. Considering the possible lack of familiarity with this new protocol, it is possible that some patients were incorrectly categorized or not sent to the appropriate centre. It is unknown if more recent data would have brought different results. The second limitation is the fact that results are limited to the Capitale-Nationale region – Quebec, which only includes a single-level one trauma care centre. Future similar research should consider more rural regions to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the accuracy of the EQTPT at a provincial level. Furthermore, comparing our results with other studies is difficult, considering the lack of a standardized definition to identify trauma patients who need urgent and specialized care. As previously mentioned, most studies on trauma triage protocols rely on ISS assessments. A resource-based outcome was believed to be more useful to capture patients who would benefit the most from receiving specialized trauma care from a level one trauma centre.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the EQTPT protocol, inspired by the CDC-ACSCOT is insufficiently sensitive and poorly specific to identify patients who require specialized and urgent care in a level one trauma centre. Future research should aim at improving current protocols or developing new and more performant triage tools.

Declaration

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tra-10.1177_14604086231156263 - Supplemental material for Performance of a provincial prehospital trauma triage protocol: A retrospective audit

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tra-10.1177_14604086231156263 for Performance of a provincial prehospital trauma triage protocol: A retrospective audit by Roxane Beaumont-Boileau, Alexandra Nadeau and Pier-Alexandre Tardif, Christian Malo, Marcel Emond, Lynne Moore, Julien Clément, Eric Mercier in Trauma

Footnotes

Conflicting of interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Département de médecine familiale et médecine d’urgence de la Faculté de médecine de l’Université Laval.

Ethical approval

This project was approved by the CHU de Québec Research Ethics Board. Our results are reported as per the EQUATOR Network STROBE reporting guidelines.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not needed for the present study as it was a retrospective study with little risk for the patient.

Contributorship

EM and RBB conceived the study and wrote the study protocol with inputs from all other authors. EM, AN and RBB developed the data extraction sheet. RBB was in charge of the data extraction with oversight by EM, ME, JC and CM. PAT performed the statistical analysis with inputs from all other authors. RBB, AN and EM drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. EM takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Maxime Arbour, Isabella Mercier, Florence Cantin, Marion Fournier, Marie-Philippe Gauvin, Kahina Ait Zaid, Marie-Laurence Ouellet-Pelletier, Philippe Pelletier, Cristina Nebunescu and Madeleine Picard-Moreau in extracting the data.

ORCID iDs

Marcel Emond

Eric Mercier

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Cameron

Gabbe

Cooper

, et al. A statewide system of trauma care in Victoria: effect on patient survival. Med J Aust 2008; 189: 546–550.

Gabbe

Lyons

Fitzgerald

, et al. Reduced population burden of road transport-related major trauma after Introduction of an inclusive trauma system. Ann Surg 2015; 261: 565–572.

Mackenzie

Rivara

Jurkovich

, et al. A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 366–378.

Moore

Champion

Tardif

, et al. Impact of trauma system structure on injury outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 2018; 42: 1327–1339.

Shackford

Hollingsworth-Fridlund

McArdle

, et al. Assuring quality in a trauma system-the medical audit committee: composition, cost, and results. J TraumaInfection, and Critical Care 1987; 27: 866–875.

Vali

Rashidian

Jalili

, et al. Effectiveness of regionalization of trauma care services: a systematic review. Public Health 2017; 146: 92–107.

Beck

Smith

Mercier

, et al. Differences in the epidemiology of out-of-hospital and in-hospital trauma deaths. PLoS ONE 2019; 14: 1–17.

Beck

Smith

Mercier

, et al. Clinical review of prehospital trauma deaths-the missing piece of the puzzle. Injury 2017; 48: 971–972.

Moore

Evans

Hameed

, et al. Mortality in Canadian trauma systems: a multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg 2017; 265: 212–217.

10.

Haas

Gomez

Zagorski

, et al. Survival of the fittest: the hidden cost of undertriage of major trauma. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 211: 804–811.

11.

Sampalis

Denis

Fréchette

, et al. Direct transport to tertiary trauma centers versus transfer from lower level facilities: impact on mortality and morbidity among patients with major trauma. J Trauma 1997; 43: 288–295.

12.

Goldfarb

Bazzoli

Coffey

. Trauma systems and the costs of trauma care. Health Serv Res 1996; 31: 71–95.

13.

Champion

Lombardo

Wade

, et al. Time and place of death from automobile crashes: research endpoint implications. J Trauma Acute Care Sur 2016; 81: 420–426.

14.

Di Battista

Soo

Catroppa

, et al. Quality of life in children and adolescents post-TBI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29: 1717–1727.

15.

Benhamed

Fraticelli

Claustre

, et al. Risk factors and mortality associated with undertriage after major trauma in a physician-led prehospital system: a retrospective multicentre cohort study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022.

16.

Sasser

Hunt

Faul

, et al. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients - recommendations of the national expert panel on field triage, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Recommendations and Reports; 2012.

17.

van Rein

Houwert

Gunning

, et al. Accuracy of prehospital triage protocols in selecting severely injured patients: a systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2017; 83: 328–339.

18.

Dufour-Neyron

Tanguay

Nadeau

, et al. Prehospital use of the esophageal tracheal combitube supraglottic airway device: a retrospective cohort study. J Emerg Med 2022; 62: 324–331.

19.

Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007; 335: 806–808.

20.

Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux (INESSS). Portrait du réseau québécois de traumatologie adulte: 2013 à 2016; 2019.

21.

Sasser

Hunt

Sullivent

, et al. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients. Recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Recommendations and Reports. 2009;58(RR-1):1–34.

22.

Staudenmayer

Wang

Weiser

, et al. The triage of injured patients: mechanism of injury, regardless of injury severity, determines hospital destination. Am Surg 2016; 82: 356–361.

23.

Lerner

Shah

Swor

, et al.

Comparison of the 1999 and 2006 trauma triage guidelines: where do patients go?

Prehospital Emerg Care 2011; 15: 12–17.

24.

Brown

Stassen

Bankey

, et al. Mechanism of injury and special consideration criteria still matter: an evaluation of the national trauma triage protocol. J Trauma 2011; 70: 38–45.

25.

Fuller

Pandor

Essat

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools for identifying major trauma in elderly injured patients: a systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2021; 90: 403–412.

26.

Coulombe

Tardif

P-A

Nadeau

, et al. Accuracy of prehospital trauma triage to select older adults requiring urgent and specialized trauma care. J Surg Res 2022; 275: 281–290.

27.

Ichwan

Darbha

Shah

, et al. Geriatric-specific triage criteria are more sensitive than standard adult criteria in identifying need for trauma center care in injured older adults. Ann Emerg Med 2015; 65: 92–100.e3.

28.

Alqurashi

Alotaibi

Bell

, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools in identifying patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Injury 2022; 53: 2060–2068.

29.

Nishijima

Gaona

Waechter

, et al. The incidence of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage in head-injured older adults transported by EMS with and without anticoagulant or antiplatelet use. J Neurotrauma 2018; 35: 750–759.

30.

Grewal

Atzema

Austin

, et al. Intracranial hemorrhage after head injury among older patients on anticoagulation seen in the emergency department: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2021; 193: E1561–E15e7.

31.

Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux (INESSS). Avis sur les critères de triage préhospitalier en traumatologie; 2013.

32.

Kuo

P-J

Chen

Y-C

, et al. Comparison of the new exponential injury severity score with the injury severity score and the new injury severity score in trauma patients: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2017; 12: 1–12.

33.

Newgard

Hedges

Diggs

, et al.

Establishing the need for trauma center care: anatomic injury or resource use?

Prehospital Emerg Care 2008; 12: 451–458.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB