Objectives: The Cribari Matrix Method (CMM) is the current standard to identify over/undertriage but requires manual trauma triage reviews to address its inadequacies. The Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT) partially emulates triage review by combining CMM with the Need For Trauma Intervention, an indicator of major trauma. This study aimed to validate STAT in a multicenter sample.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Patients' trauma burdens are a combination of anatomic damage, physiologic derangement, and the resultant depletion of reserve. Typically, Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 defines major anatomic injury and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) <7.84 defines major physiologic derangement, but there is no standard definition for reserve.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: The Cribari matrix method (CMM) is the standard to identify potential overtriage and undertriage but requires case reviews to correct for the fact that Injury Severity Score does not account for physiology or comorbidities, nor is it well correlated with resource consumption. Further, the secondary reviews introduce undesirable subjectivity. This study assessed if the Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT)-a combination of the CMM and the Need For Trauma Intervention-could more accurately determine overtriage and undertriage than the CMM alone.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMany existing metrics, such as Injury Severity Score (ISS), cannot fully describe many trauma patients because of comorbidities. This study developed and evaluated the Need For Trauma Intervention (NFTI) metric as a novel indicator of major trauma. The NFTI metric was developed from an analysis of 2,396 trauma patients at a Level I trauma center.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTrauma centers manage an active Trauma Registry from which research, quality improvement, and epidemiologic information are extracted to ensure optimal care of the trauma patient. We evaluated coding procedures using the Relational Trauma Scoring System to determine the relative accuracy of the Relational Trauma Scoring System for coding diagnoses in comparison to the standard retrospective chart-based format. Charts from 150 patients admitted to a level I trauma service were abstracted using standard methods.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF