MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403936911 · doi:10.29173/cjen196

Accuracy of the Quebec Pre-Hospital Triage Scale (EQTPT) in Predicting the Need for Trauma Team Activation: A Retrospective Administrative Data Study

2024· article· en· W4403936911 on OpenAlex
Jeanesse Bourgeois, Gregory Clark, Scott Delaney, Jeremy Grushka, Jennifer Knopp‐Sihota

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Nursing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreAthabasca UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageScale (ratio)Retrospective cohort studyMedical emergencyMedicineEmergency medicineCartographySurgeryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Trauma team activation at a Level 1 trauma centre In Quebec, Canada, is primarily at the emergency department’s staff discretion. Trauma teams may be activated prehospital, based on information provided by field paramedics or in the emergency department based on the patient’s condition on arrival. In this study, we examined over and undertriage rates based on present trauma team activation criteria. We also examined if trauma team activation, for those patients solely meeting pre-hospital major trauma criteria, would result in significant overactivation of the trauma team. Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective medical record review. Primary ambulance transport reports from May 15, 2018 to December 31, 2020, were screened to identify patients aged ≥16 years who met pre-hospital trauma triage criteria to bypass community hospitals to arrive directly at the Level 1 trauma centre. We examined pre-hospital triage criteria, trauma team involvement, Injury Severity Scores (ISS) and final disposition. Patients were evaluated for over and undertriage and rates were compared to the rates assuming all patients were to have a trauma team activation. We considered patients overtriaged if they had a full trauma team activation but had an ISS <12 and were discharged from the emergency department. Undertriage was defined as any patient with an ISS ³12 and did not have a trauma team activation. Results: Of the 371 patients who met study inclusion criteria, 123 (33.3%) did not meet trauma team activation criteria, while 214 (57.7%) had a trauma team activation. Of these, 49 patients (13.2%) were undertriaged and 31 patients (8.4%) were overtriaged and 25.8% of the major trauma patients (ISS ³ 12) were undertriaged. A trauma team activation for all meeting field triage criteria increased overtriage to 25.3% and brought undertriage rates to 0%, with statistically significant differences based on the Wilcoxon signed ranks test (p<0.05). Conclusions: In this study, undertriage rates were well above 5%. Trauma team activation, based on local field trauma triage criteria adapted from the CDC-ACSCOT field triage criteria, eliminates undertriage and keeps overtriage rates below 35%. This research suggests that field triage criteria accurately predict major trauma and the need for the involvement of the trauma team and that the condition of the trauma patient in the pre-hospital setting is accurately predicting the need for advanced trauma care

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it