Guilan Kong1, Xiaofeng Yin2, Tianbing Wang2, Richard Body3, Yu-Wang Chen4, Jing Wang1, Liying Cao5, Shouling Wu5, Jingli Gao5, Guosheng Wang5, Yonghua Hu1, Baoguo Jiang6. 1. Medical Informatics Center, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China. 2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China. 3. Emergency Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK. 4. Decision and Cognitive Sciences Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, UK. 5. Kailuan Hospital, Tangshan City, Hebei Province 063000, China. 6. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China. Electronic address: jiangbaoguo@vip.sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In China, a nationwide emergency system takes charge of pre-hospital emergency services, and it adopts a proximity principle to send trauma patients to the nearest hospitals. However, many severely injured patients have been sent to low level hospitals with no capability to treat severe trauma. Thus those patients with high probability of in-hospital death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission need to be identified in the emergency department (ED) for optimal utilisation of hospital resources and better patient outcomes. The purpose of the study was to develop a computerised tool to aid ED physicians' prediction of in-hospital death and ICU admission for trauma patients after arrival to hospital. METHODS: We reviewed a sample of 1,299 trauma patients who had been directly sent to the ED at Kailuan Hospital, North China. After excluding those cases with incomplete data entry, information of 1,195 patients was employed for analysis. The primary outcome was severe trauma that either resulted in death in hospital or in ICU admission. We proposed to use a complementary approach to combine the Pre-Hospital Index (PHI), the Trauma Index (TI), and the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in a decision support system (DSS) to assess trauma and predict in-hospital death and ICU admission. The sensitivity, specificity, over-triage rate, and under-triage rate were used as measurements to compare system performances of the DSS with the three scoring tools. RESULTS: Among the 1,195 patients, 30 (2.5%) had severe trauma. The proposed DSS showed the best sensitivity (66.7%; 95% CI: 49.8-83.6%) among all the four studied tools. The TI (sensitivity 50.0%, 95% CI: 32.2-67.8%) performed slightly better than the GCS (sensitivity 46.7%, 95% CI: 28.9-64.5%), while both the TI and GCS performed better than the PHI (sensitivity 30.0%, 95% CI: 13.5-46.5%). The performance differences between the DSS and the three extant scoring tools were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed DSS outperformed the extant trauma scoring systems. It has a strong potential to help ED physicians identify severe trauma, optimally utilise hospital resources, and recommend appropriate triage and treatment strategies for trauma patients that have strong possibilities for in-hospital death and ICU admission.
BACKGROUND: In China, a nationwide emergency system takes charge of pre-hospital emergency services, and it adopts a proximity principle to send traumapatients to the nearest hospitals. However, many severely injured patients have been sent to low level hospitals with no capability to treat severe trauma. Thus those patients with high probability of in-hospital death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission need to be identified in the emergency department (ED) for optimal utilisation of hospital resources and better patient outcomes. The purpose of the study was to develop a computerised tool to aid ED physicians' prediction of in-hospital death and ICU admission for traumapatients after arrival to hospital. METHODS: We reviewed a sample of 1,299 traumapatients who had been directly sent to the ED at Kailuan Hospital, North China. After excluding those cases with incomplete data entry, information of 1,195 patients was employed for analysis. The primary outcome was severe trauma that either resulted in death in hospital or in ICU admission. We proposed to use a complementary approach to combine the Pre-Hospital Index (PHI), the Trauma Index (TI), and the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) in a decision support system (DSS) to assess trauma and predict in-hospital death and ICU admission. The sensitivity, specificity, over-triage rate, and under-triage rate were used as measurements to compare system performances of the DSS with the three scoring tools. RESULTS: Among the 1,195 patients, 30 (2.5%) had severe trauma. The proposed DSS showed the best sensitivity (66.7%; 95% CI: 49.8-83.6%) among all the four studied tools. The TI (sensitivity 50.0%, 95% CI: 32.2-67.8%) performed slightly better than the GCS (sensitivity 46.7%, 95% CI: 28.9-64.5%), while both the TI and GCS performed better than the PHI (sensitivity 30.0%, 95% CI: 13.5-46.5%). The performance differences between the DSS and the three extant scoring tools were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed DSS outperformed the extant trauma scoring systems. It has a strong potential to help ED physicians identify severe trauma, optimally utilise hospital resources, and recommend appropriate triage and treatment strategies for traumapatients that have strong possibilities for in-hospital death and ICU admission.
Authors: Steven C Mehl; Megan E Cunningham; Christian J Streck; Rowland Pettit; Eunice Y Huang; Matthew T Santore; Kuojen Tsao; Richard A Falcone; Melvin S Dassinger; Jeffrey H Haynes; Robert T Russell; Bindi J Naik-Mathuria; Shawn D St Peter; David Mooney; Jeffrey Upperman; Martin L Blakely; Adam M Vogel Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2022-02-06 Impact factor: 2.003
Authors: Dai Su; Yingchun Chen; Hongxia Gao; Haomiao Li; Jingjing Chang; Shihan Lei; Di Jiang; Xiaomei Hu; Min Tan; Zhifang Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-01-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Eyal Klang; Benjamin R Kummer; Neha S Dangayach; Amy Zhong; M Arash Kia; Prem Timsina; Ian Cossentino; Anthony B Costa; Matthew A Levin; Eric K Oermann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Fabrizia Schmid; Alexandra Malinovska; Karin Weigel; Tito Bosia; Christian H Nickel; Roland Bingisser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 3.240