Purpose: Accurate and appropriate prehospital field triage is essential for a trauma system. The Korean trauma system (established in 2014) uses the trauma field triage algorithm of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This study evaluated the suitability of the CDC field triage criteria for major trauma cases (injury severity score >15) in Korea. methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated trauma patients who presented at the authors' regional trauma center from January 1 to May 7, 2017. The undertriage and overtriage rates of each CDC field triage step were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated for each step. results: Among the 1,009 enrolled patients, 168 (16.7%) had major trauma. The undertriage/overtriage rates of each step (steps I, II, III, and IV) of CDC field triage were 9.2%/47.4%, 6.3%/50.8%, 4.5%/59.4%, and 5.3%/78.9%, respectively. The AUC values of each CDC triage step were 0.722, 0.783, 0.791, and 0.615, respectively. The AUC values of the separate components of each step (physiologic criteria, anatomic criteria, mechanism-of-injury criteria, and special considerations) were 0.722, 0.648, 0.647, and 0.456, respectively. Conclusions: The CDC field triage system is acceptable, but not ideal, for Korean trauma care. If we follow the protocol, it would be preferable to omit step IV. The Korean Triage and Acuity Scale may be a good indicator for in-hospital triage. However, a new triage protocol that is simple to estimate on-scene while having good performance should be developed.

Purpose: Two years have passed since a level I trauma center was officially opened in the Gacheon Gil Hospital, South Korea. We analyzed 2014 and 2015 registered patient data from the Korean Trauma Data Base (KTDB) to identify trends in trauma patient care and factors that influence the quality of trauma care at the Gacheon Gil trauma center.Methods: Data was extracted from the KTDB included patient age, sex, systolic blood pressure at emergency room arrival, revised trauma score, injury severity score, trauma injury severity score, transfusion amount, and the cause of death was analyzed.Results: A total of 3269 trauma patients were admitted to our trauma center in 2014 and 3225 in 2015. Demographics and mechanism of injury were not significantly different between years. The severity of trauma injury was decreased in 2015 although the mortality rate was slightly increased. This requires further analysis.Conclusion: The aim of this study was to determine the general status and trends in trauma incidence and management outcomes for the Incheon area. We noted no significant changes in trauma status from 2014 to 2015. We need to collect and review trauma patient data over a long period in order to elucidate trauma incidence and management trends in the trauma field. Finally, studies using trauma patient data will indicate appropriate quality control factors for trauma care and help to improve the quality of trauma management. [ J Trauma Inj 2016; 29: 155-160 ]

No abstract