This study examined emergency medical service (EMS) transportation patterns for adult trauma patients before and after establishing a level 1 regional trauma center (RTC) and to evaluate the transportation approach after prehospital severity screening.

This was a retrospective observational study of trauma patients aged ≥18 years admitted via EMS to the emergency department or a level 1 RTC, 1 year before to 3 years after RTC establishment. Patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) in the patient registration system were selected. Analyses were performed to determine transportation pattern changes by comparing patients pre- and post-RTC establishment and by yearly comparisons over the 4-year study period using the Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test.

Overall, 3,587 patients were included. The mean ISS was higher in the post-RTC group (n=2,693; 10.63±8.90, median 9.00) than in the pre-RTC group (n=894; 9.44±8.20, median 8.00; p<0.001). The mean transportation distance (9.84±13.71, median 5.80 vs. 13.12±16.15 km, median 6.00; p<0.001) was longer in the post-RTC group than in the pre-RTC group. Furthermore, proportionally fewer patients were transported from an area in the same city as the RTC after establishment (86.1% vs. 78.3%; p<0.001). Yearly comparisons revealed a gradually increasing trend in the hospital death rate (p_trend=0.031).

After establishing a level 1 RTC, the EMS transportation of severe trauma patients increased gradually along with the long-distance transportation of minor trauma patients. Therefore, improved prehospital EMS trauma severity assessments and level 1 RTC involvement in patient classification in the prehospital phase are necessary.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The aim of this study was to identify clinical outcome and characteristics of trauma patients via emergency medical services (EMS).

Medical records of the trauma patients visiting the emergency department were retrospectively collected and analyzed from January 2015 to June 2016 in the single institution. Of 529 registered patients, 371 patients were transported by - were enrolled. The parameters including age, gender, injury mechanism, Glasgow coma scale on arrival, presence of shock (systemic blood pressure <90 mmHg) on arrival, time to arrival from accident to emergency room (ER), need for emergency procedures such as operation or angioembolization, need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, injury severity score (ISS), the trauma and injury severity score, revised trauma score (RTS), length of stay, and mortality rate were collected. The SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used for the data analysis.

Arrival time from the field to the ER was significantly shorter in EMS group. However, overall outcomes including mortalities, length of stay in the ICU and hospital were same between both groups. Age, ISS, RTS, and injury mechanisms were significantly different in both groups. ISS, RTS, and age showed significant influence on mortality statistically (p<0.05).

The time to arrival of EMS was fast but had no effect on length of hospital stay, mortality rate. Further research that incorporates pre-hospital factors influence clinical outcomes should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of such a system in trauma care of Korea.