Increasing volume of patients at level I trauma centres: is there a need for triage modification in elderly patients with injuries of low severity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of a regionalized trauma system in Quebec in 1993, patient loads at level I trauma centres have been increasing gradually. We aimed to investigate the type of patient presenting to 4 tertiary trauma centres in Quebec, the nature of their injuries and whether there was a need to modify triage protocols. METHODS: The study consisted of a review of major trauma patients entered into a regional trauma registry between Apr. 7, 1993, and Mar. 31, 2000. A total of 29 669 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. We compared patient demographics, injury type and severity and mechanism of injury. RESULTS: During the 7 years of the study, there was an increase in the volume and presentation of patients injured in falls (p < 0.01), patients with extremity injuries (p < 0.01), single injuries (p < 0.01) and injuries to single body regions (p < 0.01). Young patients were mostly injured in motor vehicle collisions and had multiple injuries of high severity whereas elderly patients were mostly injured in falls and experienced isolated extremity injuries of low severity. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of elderly patients injured in falls, experiencing isolated extremity injuries of low severity and being treated at tertiary trauma centres in Quebec is overwhelmingly high. Revision of pre-hospital triage protocols should be considered and studied in order to transport trauma patients to appropriate facilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".