Craig D Newgard1, Zhuo Yang2, Daniel Nishijima3, K John McConnell4, Stacy A Trent5, James F Holmes3, Mohamud Daya6, N Clay Mann7, Renee Y Hsia8, Tom D Rea9, N Ewen Wang10, Kristan Staudenmayer11, M Kit Delgado12. 1. Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address: newgardc@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA. 4. Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR; Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, CO; Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 6. Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 7. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 10. Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. 11. Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. 12. Department of Emergency Medicine, Center for Emergency Care Policy Research, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma sets national targets for the accuracy of field trauma triage at ≥95% sensitivity and ≥65% specificity, yet the cost-effectiveness of realizing these goals is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of current field trauma triage practices compared with triage strategies consistent with the national targets. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 79,937 injured adults transported by 48 emergency medical services agencies to 105 trauma and nontrauma hospitals in 6 regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. Incremental differences in survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (costs per QALY gained) were estimated for each triage strategy during a 1-year and lifetime horizon using a decision analytic Markov model. We considered an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold of <$100,000 to be cost-effective. RESULTS: For these 6 regions, a high-sensitivity triage strategy consistent with national trauma policy (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 17.1%) would cost $1,317,333 per QALY gained, and current triage practices (sensitivity 87.2%, specificity 64.0%) cost $88,000 per QALY gained, compared with a moderate sensitivity strategy (sensitivity 71.2%, specificity 66.5%). Refining emergency medical services transport patterns by triage status improved cost-effectiveness. At the trauma-system level, a high-sensitivity triage strategy would save 3.7 additional lives per year at a 1-year cost of $8.78 million, and a moderate sensitivity approach would cost 5.2 additional lives and save $781,616 each year. CONCLUSIONS: A high-sensitivity approach to field triage consistent with national trauma policy is not cost-effective. The most cost-effective approach to field triage appears closely tied to triage specificity and adherence to triage-based emergency medical services transport practices.
BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma sets national targets for the accuracy of field trauma triage at ≥95% sensitivity and ≥65% specificity, yet the cost-effectiveness of realizing these goals is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of current field trauma triage practices compared with triage strategies consistent with the national targets. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 79,937 injured adults transported by 48 emergency medical services agencies to 105 trauma and nontrauma hospitals in 6 regions of the western United States from 2006 through 2008. Incremental differences in survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (costs per QALY gained) were estimated for each triage strategy during a 1-year and lifetime horizon using a decision analytic Markov model. We considered an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold of <$100,000 to be cost-effective. RESULTS: For these 6 regions, a high-sensitivity triage strategy consistent with national trauma policy (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 17.1%) would cost $1,317,333 per QALY gained, and current triage practices (sensitivity 87.2%, specificity 64.0%) cost $88,000 per QALY gained, compared with a moderate sensitivity strategy (sensitivity 71.2%, specificity 66.5%). Refining emergency medical services transport patterns by triage status improved cost-effectiveness. At the trauma-system level, a high-sensitivity triage strategy would save 3.7 additional lives per year at a 1-year cost of $8.78 million, and a moderate sensitivity approach would cost 5.2 additional lives and save $781,616 each year. CONCLUSIONS: A high-sensitivity approach to field triage consistent with national trauma policy is not cost-effective. The most cost-effective approach to field triage appears closely tied to triage specificity and adherence to triage-based emergency medical services transport practices.
Authors: Mark Faul; Marlena M Wald; Ernest E Sullivent; Scott M Sasser; Vikas Kapil; E Brooke Lerner; Richard C Hunt Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Etienne E Pracht; Joseph J Tepas; Brian G Celso; Barbara Langland-Orban; Lewis Flint Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: J S Sampalis; R Denis; A Lavoie; P Fréchette; S Boukas; A Nikolis; D Benoit; D Fleiszer; R Brown; M Churchill-Smith; D Mulder Journal: J Trauma Date: 1999-04
Authors: K John McConnell; Craig D Newgard; Richard J Mullins; Melanie Arthur; Jerris R Hedges Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Joseph P Minei; Timothy C Fabian; Danielle M Guffey; Craig D Newgard; Eileen M Bulger; Karen J Brasel; Jason L Sperry; Russell D MacDonald Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Craig Newgard; Susan Malveau; Kristan Staudenmayer; N Ewen Wang; Renee Y Hsia; N Clay Mann; James F Holmes; Nathan Kuppermann; Jason S Haukoos; Eileen M Bulger; Mengtao Dai; Lawrence J Cook Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Demetrios Demetriades; Matthew Martin; Ali Salim; Peter Rhee; Carlos Brown; Jay Doucet; Linda Chan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: R J Mullins; J Veum-Stone; M Helfand; M Zimmer-Gembeck; J R Hedges; P A Southard; D D Trunkey Journal: JAMA Date: 1994 Jun 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christian Waydhas; Markus Baake; Lars Becker; Boris Buck; Helena Düsing; Björn Heindl; Kai Oliver Jensen; Rolf Lefering; Carsten Mand; T Paffrath; Uwe Schweigkofler; Kai Sprengel; Heiko Trentzsch; Bernd Wohlrath; Dan Bieler Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Elinore J Kaufman; Ashkan Ertefaie; Dylan S Small; Daniel N Holena; M Kit Delgado Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: D Bieler; H Trentzsch; M Baacke; L Becker; H Düsing; B Heindl; K O Jensen; R Lefering; C Mand; O Özkurtul; T Paffrath; U Schweigkofler; K Sprengel; B Wohlrath; C Waydhas Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.000