Cargando…

An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England

BACKGROUND: Many health care systems triage injured patients to major trauma centres (MTCs) or local hospitals by using triage tools and paramedic judgement. Triage tools are typically assessed by whether patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 go to an MTC and whether patients with an ISS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pollard, Daniel, Fuller, Gordon, Goodacre, Steve, van Rein, Eveline A. J., Waalwijk, Job F., van Heijl, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00557-6
_version_ 1784632171172986880
author Pollard, Daniel
Fuller, Gordon
Goodacre, Steve
van Rein, Eveline A. J.
Waalwijk, Job F.
van Heijl, Mark
author_facet Pollard, Daniel
Fuller, Gordon
Goodacre, Steve
van Rein, Eveline A. J.
Waalwijk, Job F.
van Heijl, Mark
author_sort Pollard, Daniel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many health care systems triage injured patients to major trauma centres (MTCs) or local hospitals by using triage tools and paramedic judgement. Triage tools are typically assessed by whether patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 go to an MTC and whether patients with an ISS < 16 are sent to their local hospital. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity of triage tools, with the optimal balance being unknown. We conducted an economic evaluation of major trauma triage tools to identify which tool would be considered cost-effective by UK decision makers. METHODS: A patient-level, probabilistic, mathematical model of a UK major trauma system was developed. Patients with an ISS ≥ 16 who were only treated at local hospitals had worse outcomes compared to being treated in an MTC. Nine empirically derived triage tools, from a previous study, were examined so we assessed triage tools with realistic trade-offs between triage tool sensitivity and specificity. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each tool and compared to maximum acceptable ICERs (MAICERs) in England. RESULTS: Four tools had ICERs within the normal range of MAICERs used by English decision makers (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). A low sensitivity (28.4%) and high specificity (88.6%) would be cost-effective at the lower end of this range while higher sensitivity (87.5%) and lower specificity (62.8%) was cost-effective towards the upper end of this range. These results were sensitive to the cost of MTC admissions and whether MTCs had a benefit for patients with an ISS between 9 and 15. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effective triage tool depends on the English decision maker’s MAICER for this health problem. In the usual range of MAICERs, cost-effective prehospital trauma triage involves clinically suboptimal sensitivity, with a proportion of seriously injured patients (at least 10%) being initially transported to local hospitals. High sensitivity trauma triage requires development of more accurate decision rules; research to establish if patients with an ISS between 9 and 15 benefit from MTCs; or, inefficient use of health care resources to manage patients with less serious injuries at MTCs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00557-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8753918
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87539182022-01-18 An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England Pollard, Daniel Fuller, Gordon Goodacre, Steve van Rein, Eveline A. J. Waalwijk, Job F. van Heijl, Mark BMC Emerg Med Research BACKGROUND: Many health care systems triage injured patients to major trauma centres (MTCs) or local hospitals by using triage tools and paramedic judgement. Triage tools are typically assessed by whether patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 go to an MTC and whether patients with an ISS < 16 are sent to their local hospital. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity of triage tools, with the optimal balance being unknown. We conducted an economic evaluation of major trauma triage tools to identify which tool would be considered cost-effective by UK decision makers. METHODS: A patient-level, probabilistic, mathematical model of a UK major trauma system was developed. Patients with an ISS ≥ 16 who were only treated at local hospitals had worse outcomes compared to being treated in an MTC. Nine empirically derived triage tools, from a previous study, were examined so we assessed triage tools with realistic trade-offs between triage tool sensitivity and specificity. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each tool and compared to maximum acceptable ICERs (MAICERs) in England. RESULTS: Four tools had ICERs within the normal range of MAICERs used by English decision makers (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). A low sensitivity (28.4%) and high specificity (88.6%) would be cost-effective at the lower end of this range while higher sensitivity (87.5%) and lower specificity (62.8%) was cost-effective towards the upper end of this range. These results were sensitive to the cost of MTC admissions and whether MTCs had a benefit for patients with an ISS between 9 and 15. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effective triage tool depends on the English decision maker’s MAICER for this health problem. In the usual range of MAICERs, cost-effective prehospital trauma triage involves clinically suboptimal sensitivity, with a proportion of seriously injured patients (at least 10%) being initially transported to local hospitals. High sensitivity trauma triage requires development of more accurate decision rules; research to establish if patients with an ISS between 9 and 15 benefit from MTCs; or, inefficient use of health care resources to manage patients with less serious injuries at MTCs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00557-6. BioMed Central 2022-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8753918/ /pubmed/35016621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00557-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Pollard, Daniel
Fuller, Gordon
Goodacre, Steve
van Rein, Eveline A. J.
Waalwijk, Job F.
van Heijl, Mark
An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England
title An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England
title_full An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England
title_fullStr An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England
title_full_unstemmed An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England
title_short An economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in England
title_sort economic evaluation of triage tools for patients with suspected severe injuries in england
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00557-6
work_keys_str_mv AT pollarddaniel aneconomicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT fullergordon aneconomicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT goodacresteve aneconomicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT vanreinevelineaj aneconomicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT waalwijkjobf aneconomicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT vanheijlmark aneconomicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT pollarddaniel economicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT fullergordon economicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT goodacresteve economicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT vanreinevelineaj economicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT waalwijkjobf economicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland
AT vanheijlmark economicevaluationoftriagetoolsforpatientswithsuspectedsevereinjuriesinengland