Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr;187(2):371-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.06.037. Epub 2013 Jul 13.

Prehospital triage of trauma patients using the Random Forest computer algorithm

Michelle Scerbo  1 , Hari Radhakrishnan  1 , Bryan Cotton  1 , Anahita Dua  1 , Deborah Del Junco  1 , Charles Wade  1 , John B Holcomb  2
Affiliations

Prehospital triage of trauma patients using the Random Forest computer algorithm

Michelle Scerbo et al. J Surg Res. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Overtriage not only wastes resources but also displaces the patient from their community and causes delay of treatment for the more seriously injured. This study aimed to validate the Random Forest computer model (RFM) as means of better triaging trauma patients to level 1 trauma centers.

Methods: Adult trauma patients with "medium activation" presenting via helicopter to a level 1 trauma center from May 2007 to May 2009 were included. The "medium activation" trauma patient is alert and hemodynamically stable on scene but has either subnormal vital signs or accumulation of risk factors that may indicate a potentially serious injury. Variables included in the RFM analysis were demographics, mechanism of injury, prehospital fluid, medications, vitals, and disposition. Statistical analysis was performed via the Random Forest algorithm to compare our institutional triage rate to rates determined by the RFM.

Results: A total of 1653 patients were included in this study, of which 496 were used in the testing set of the RFM. In our testing set, 33.8% of patients brought to our level 1 trauma center could have been managed at a level 3 trauma center, and 88% of patients who required a level 1 trauma center were identified correctly. In the testing set, there was an overtriage rate of 66%, whereas using the RFM, we decreased the overtriage rate to 42% (P < 0.001). There was an undertriage rate of 8.3%. The RFM predicted patient disposition with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 42%, negative predictive value of 92%, and positive predictive value of 34%.

Conclusions: Although prospective validation is required, it appears that computer modeling potentially could be used to guide triage decisions, allowing both more accurate triage and more efficient use of the trauma system.

Keywords: Overtriage; Prehospital care; Random Forest model; Trauma; Triage; Undertriage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure I
Figure I
Breakdown of patients based on classification
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mackersie RC. History of Trauma Field Triage Development and the American College of Surgeons Criteria. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006;10:287–94. - PubMed
    1. Hannan EL, Farrell LS, Cooper A, Henry M, Simon B. Physiologic Trauma Triage Criteria in Adult Trauma Patients: Are they effective in saving lives by transporting patients to trauma centers? J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:584–92. - PubMed
    1. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma . Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient. ACS; Chicago: 2006.
    1. MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Nathens AB, Frey KP, Egleston BL, Salkaever DS, Scharfstein DO. A National Evaluation of the Effect of Trauma-Center Care on Mortality. NEJM. 2006;354:366–78. - PubMed
    1. Chen L, Reisner AT, Gribok A, Reifman J. Exploration of Prehospital Vital Sign Trends for the Prediction of Trauma Outcomes. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;13:286–94. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms