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
. 2024 Jun 1;9(1):10-22.
doi: 10.29045/14784726.2024.6.9.1.10.

Major Trauma Triage Tool Study (MATTS) expert consensus-derived injury assessment tool

Gordon Fuller  1 , Nathan Howes  2 , Roderick Mackenzie  3 , Samuel Keating  4 , Janette Turner  5 , Chris Holt  4 , Joshua Miller  6 , Steve Goodacre  7
Affiliations

Major Trauma Triage Tool Study (MATTS) expert consensus-derived injury assessment tool

Gordon Fuller et al. Br Paramed J. .

Abstract

Introduction: Major trauma centre (MTC) care has been associated with improved outcomes for injured patients. English ambulance services and trauma networks currently use a range of triage tools to select patients for bypass to MTCs. A standardised national triage tool may improve triage accuracy, cost-effectiveness and the reproducibility of decision-making.

Methods: We conducted an expert consensus process to derive and develop a major trauma triage tool for use in English trauma networks. A web-based Delphi survey was conducted to identify and confirm candidate triage tool predictors of major trauma. Facilitated roundtable consensus meetings were convened to confirm the proposed triage tool's purpose, target diagnostic threshold, scope, intended population and structure, as well as the individual triage tool predictors and cut points. Public and patient involvement (PPI) focus groups were held to ensure triage tool acceptability to service users.

Results: The Delphi survey reached consensus on nine triage variables in two domains, from 109 candidate variables after three rounds. Following a review of the relevant evidence during the consensus meetings, iterative rounds of discussion achieved consensus on the following aspects of the triage tool: reference standard, scope, target diagnostic accuracy and intended population. A three-step tool comprising physiology, anatomical injury and clinical judgement domains, with triage variables assessed in parallel, was recommended. The triage tool was received favourably by PPI focus groups.

Conclusions: This paper presents a new expert consensus derived major trauma triage tool with defined purpose, scope, intended population, structure, constituent variables, variable definitions and thresholds. Prospective evaluation is required to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness, acceptability and usability.

Keywords: expert consensus; injuries; major trauma; major trauma triage; trauma centres; triage tool.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

None
Figure 1. Schematic representation of triage tool development.
None
Figure 2. Final MATTS triage tool.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

  • Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities.
    Cottey L, Shanahan TAG, Gronlund T, Whiting C, Sokunbi M, Carley SD, Smith JE; James Lind Alliance (JLA) Emergency Medicine (EM) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) Refresh Steering Group. Cottey L, et al. Emerg Med J. 2023 Sep;40(9):666-670. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2022-213019. Epub 2023 Jul 25. Emerg Med J. 2023. PMID: 37491155 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Andaur Navarro C. L., Damen J. A. A., van Smeden M., Takada T., Nijman S. W. J., Dhiman P., Ma J., Collins G. S., Bajpai R., Riley R. D., Moons K. G. M. & Hooft L. (2023). Systematic review identifies the design and methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 154, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.015. - PubMed
    1. Bouwmeester W., Zuithoff N. P., Mallett S., Geerlings M. I., Vergouwe Y., Steyerberg E. W., Altman D. G. & Moons K. G. (2012). Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: A systematic review. PLoS Medicine, 9(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001221. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Celso B., Tepas J., Langland-Orban B., Pracht E., Papa L., Lottenberg L. & Flint L. (2006). A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcome of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers following the establishment of trauma systems. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care, 60(2), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000197916.99629.eb. - PubMed
    1. Coats T. J. & Lecky F. (2017). ‘Major trauma’: Now two separate diseases? Emergency Medicine Journal, 34(8), 494. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2017-206788. - PubMed
    1. Cole E., Lecky F., West A., Smith N., Brohi K., Davenport R. & ELoTS Study Collaborators. (2016). The impact of a pan-regional inclusive trauma system on quality of care. Annals of Surgery, 264(1), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001393. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources