Clinical Implications of Over- and Under-Triage Using Need for Trauma Intervention and Cribari Indices
Emily K. Lenart, Saskya E. Byerly, Megan G. Gross, Yasmin M. Ali, Cory R. Evans, Thomas S. Easterday, Isaac W. Howley, Andy J. Kerwin, Peter E. Fischer, Dina M. Filiberto- General Medicine
Background
Need for Trauma Intervention (NFTI) score was proposed to help identify injured trauma patients while minimizing under (UT) and over triage (OT). Using a national database, we aimed to describe UT and OT of NFTI vs standard Cribari method (CM) and hypothesized triage sensitivity remains poor.
Methods
The 2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was queried. Demographics, mechanism, verification level, interfacility transfer (IF), and level of activation were collected. Patients were stratified by both NFTI [+ vs -] and CM [Injury severity score (ISS) < 15 vs > 15]. UT was defined as NFTI + or ISS >15 without full trauma activation.
Results
1,030,526 patients were identified in TQIP. 84,969 were UT and 97,262 were OT using NFTI while 94,020 were UT and 108,823 were OT using CM. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of NFTI is 49%, 89%, 45%, and 90%, respectively vs 43%, 87%, 39%, and 89% of CM, respectively. Age was higher in the UT group using both scores (52 vs 42, P < .0001 and 54 vs 42, P < .0001, respectively). Using MLR, level 2 and 3 verification, blunt mechanism, female, IF, and older age were associated with UT in both NFTI and CM. Level 1 verification, penetrating mechanism, male, no IF, and younger age were associated with OT.
Conclusions
Current prehospital triage criteria have poor sensitivity for identifying severely injured trauma patients by both NFTI and CM. UT increases as age of the patient increases. Further studies are needed to improve triage.