Adoption of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme for Injured Patients

Background: When emergency medical services (EMS) providers respond to the scene of an injury, they must decide where to transport the injured patients for further evaluation and treatment. This is done through a process known as “field triage”, whereby a patient’s injuries are matched to the most appropriate hospital. In 2005-2006 the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, revised the 1999 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Field Triage Decision Scheme. This revision, the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme, was published in 2006.Methods: State Public Health departments’ and EMS’ external websites were evaluated to ascertain the current status of implementation of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme.Results: Information regarding field triage was located for 41 states. In nine states no information regarding field triage was available on their websites. Of the 41 states where information was located, seven were classified as “full adopters” of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme; nine were considered “partial adopters”; 17 states were found to be using a full version or modification of the 1999 Field Triage Decision Scheme; and eight states were considered to be using a different protocol or scheme for field triage.Conclusion: Many states have adopted the 2006 Decision Scheme (full or partial). Further investigation is needed to determine the reasons why some states do not adopt the guidelines. [West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(3):275-283.

What Do We Know of Childhood Exposures to Metals (Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury) in Emerging Market Countries?

Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury present potential health risks to children who are exposed through inhalation or ingestion. Emerging Market countries experience rapid industrial development that may coincide with the increased release of these metals into the environment. A literature review was conducted for English language articles from the 21st century on pediatric exposures to arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) top 10 Emerging Market countries: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. Seventy-six peer-reviewed, published studies on pediatric exposure to metals met the inclusion criteria. The reported concentrations of metals in blood and urine from these studies were generally higher than US reference values, and many studies identified adverse health effects associated with metals exposure. Evidence of exposure to metals in the pediatric population of these Emerging Market countries demonstrates a need for interventions to reduce exposure and efforts to establish country-specific reference values through surveillance or biomonitoring. The findings from review of these 10 countries also suggest the need for country-specific public health policies and clinician education in Emerging Markets

Adoption of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme for Injured Patients

Background: When emergency medical services (EMS) providers respond to the scene of an injury, they must decide where to transport the injured patients for further evaluation and treatment. This is done through a process known as “field triage”, whereby a patient’s injuries are matched to the most appropriate hospital. In 2005-2006 the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, revised the 1999 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Field Triage Decision Scheme. This revision, the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme, was published in 2006.Methods: State Public Health departments’ and EMS’ external websites were evaluated to ascertain the current status of implementation of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme.Results: Information regarding field triage was located for 41 states. In nine states no information regarding field triage was available on their websites. Of the 41 states where information was located, seven were classified as “full adopters” of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme; nine were considered “partial adopters”; 17 states were found to be using a full version or modification of the 1999 Field Triage Decision Scheme; and eight states were considered to be using a different protocol or scheme for field triage.Conclusion: Many states have adopted the 2006 Decision Scheme (full or partial). Further investigation is needed to determine the reasons why some states do not adopt the guidelines. [West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(3):275-283.

Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the national expert panel on field triage

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1--44 years, and the approximately 800,000 emergency medical services (EMS) providers have a substantial impact on the care of injured persons and on public health. At an injury scene, EMS providers determine the severity of injury, initiate medical management, and identify the most appropriate facility to which to transport the patient through a process called "field triage." Although basic emergency services generally are consistent across hospital emergency departments (EDs), certain hospitals have additional expertise, resources, and equipment for treating severely injured patients. Such facilities, called "trauma centers," are classified from Level I (centers providing the highest level of trauma care) to Level IV (centers providing initial trauma care and transfer to a higher level of trauma care if necessary) depending on the scope of resources and services available. The risk for death of a severely injured person is 25% lower if the patient receives care at a Level I trauma center. However, not all patients require the services of a Level I trauma center; patients who are injured less severely might be served better by being transported to a closer ED capable of managing milder injuries. Transferring all injured patients to Level I trauma centers might overburden the centers, have a negative impact on patient outcomes, and decrease cost effectiveness.\ud \ud In 1986, the American College of Surgeons developed the Field Triage Decision Scheme (Decision Scheme), which serves as the basis for triage protocols for state and local EMS systems across the United States. The Decision Scheme is an algorithm that guides EMS providers through four decision steps (physiologic, anatomic, mechanism of injury, and special considerations) to determine the most appropriate destination facility within the local trauma care system. Since its initial publication in 1986, the Decision Scheme has been revised four times. In 2005, with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CDC began facilitating revision of the Decision Scheme by hosting a series of meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, which includes injury-care providers, public health professionals, automotive industry representatives, and officials from federal agencies. The Panel reviewed relevant literature, presented its findings, and reached consensus on necessary revisions. The revised Decision Scheme was published in 2006. This report describes the process and rationale used by the Expert Panel to revise the Decision Scheme