More than 20% of the patients with severe injuries were not transported to a level I trauma center. These patients are at risk for preventable morbidity and mortality. This finding indicates the need for improvement of the prehospital triage protocol.

IMPORTANCE Prehospital trauma triage protocols are used worldwide to get the right patient to the right hospital and thereby improve the chance of survival and avert lifelong disabilities. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma set target levels for undertriage rates of less than 5%. None of the existing triage protocols has been able to achieve this target in isolation.OBJECTIVE To develop and validate a new prehospital trauma triage protocol to improve current triage rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this multicenter cohort study, all patients with trauma who were 16 years and older and transported to a trauma center in 2 different regions of the Netherlands were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A new prediction model was developed in the CentralNetherlands region based on prehospital predictors associated with severe injury. Severe injury was defined as an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. A full-model strategy with penalized maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a model with 8 predictors that were chosen based on clinical reasoning. Accuracy of the developed prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. The model was externally validated in the Brabant region. RESULTSUsing data from 4950 patients with trauma from the Central Netherlands region for the design data set (58.3% male; mean [SD] age, 47 [21] years) and 6859 patients for the validation Brabant region (52.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51 [22] years), the following 8 significant predictors were selected for the prediction model: age; systolic blood pressure; Glasgow Coma Scale score; mechanism criteria; penetrating injury to the head, thorax, or abdomen; signs and/or symptoms of head or neck injury; expected injury in the Abbreviated Injury Scale thorax region; and expected injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale regions. The prediction model showed a C statistic of 0.823 (95% CI, 0.813-0.832) and good calibration. The cutoff point with a minimum specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 49.3%-50.7%) led to a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-90.0%). External validation showed a C statistic of 0.831 (95% CI, 0.814-0.848) and adequate calibration. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe new prehospital trauma triage prediction model may lower undertriage rates to approximately 10% with an overtriage rate of 50%. The next step should be to implement this prediction model with the use of a mobile app for emergency medical services professionals.Question Can a new prehospital prediction model for trauma triage lower the undertriage rate to approximately 10%, with a maximum overtriage rate of 50%?Findings In this multicenter cohort study that included 4950 patients with trauma, 8 highly significant predictors associated with injury severity were selected for the prediction model. The new prehospital trauma triage prediction model was externally validated and may lower the undertriage rate to 11.2% with an overtriage rate of 50.0%. Meaning This prediction model can be integrated in a mobile...

No abstract

It is crucial to transport the right patient to the right hospital. Yet the quality of the full diagnostic strategy to determine the optimal receiving hospital is unknown. None of the investigated field triage protocols complied with current sensitivity targets. Improved efforts are needed to develop accurate child-specific tools to prevent undertriage and its potential life-threatening consequences.

Purpose The importance of treating severely injured patients in higher-level trauma centers is undisputable. However, it is uncertain whether severely injured patients that were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center (i.e., undertriage) benefit from being transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Methods This observational study included all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score ≥ 16) that were initially transported to a lower-level trauma center within eight ambulance regions. The exposure of interest was whether a patient was transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Primary outcomes were 24-h and 30-day mortality. Generalized linear models including inverse probability weights for several potential confounders were constructed to evaluate the association between transfer status and mortality. Results We included 165,404 trauma patients that were transported with high priority to a trauma center, of which 3932 patients were severely injured. 1065 (27.1%) patients were transported to a lower-level trauma center of which 322 (30.2%) were transferred to a higher-level trauma center. Transferring undertriaged patients to a higher-level trauma center was significantly associated with reduced 24-h (relative risk [RR] 0.26, 95%-CI 0.10–0.68) and 30-day mortality (RR 0.65, 0.46–0.92). Similar results were observed in patients with critical injuries (24-h: RR 0.35, 0.16–0.77; 30-day: RR 0.55, 0.37–0.80) and patients with traumatic brain injury (24-h: RR 0.31, 0.11–0.83; 30-day: RR 0.66, 0.46–0.96). Conclusions A minority of the undertriaged patients are transferred to a higher-level trauma center. An inter-hospital transfer appears to be safe and may improve the survival of severely injured patients initially transported to a lower-level trauma center.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveFollowing an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis.DesignA post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events.ResultsOverall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25–P75: 46–222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)).ConclusionThe optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge.