View Item 

Show simple item record

Risk Adjustment Measures and Outcome Measures for Prehospital Trauma Research: Recommendations from the Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP)
dc.contributor.authorBeskind, Daniel L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKeim, Samuel M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSpaite, Daniel W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGarrison, Herbert G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBrooke Lerner, E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHowse, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.authorMaio, Ronald F.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-10T15:38:19Z
dc.date.available2012-11-02T18:56:48Zen_US
dc.date.issued2011-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationBeskind, Daniel L.; Keim, Samuel M.; Spaite, Daniel W.; Garrison, Herbert G.; Brooke Lerner, E.; Howse, David; Maio, Ronald F. (2011). "Risk Adjustment Measures and Outcome Measures for Prehospital Trauma Research: Recommendations from the Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP)." Academic Emergency Medicine 18(9). <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87101>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87101
dc.description.abstractObjectives:  The objectives were to conduct a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature for risk adjustment measures (RAMs) and outcome measures (OMs) for prehospital trauma research and to use a structured expert panel process to recommend measures for use in future emergency medical services (EMS) trauma outcomes research. Methods:  A systematic literature search and review was performed identifying the published studies evaluating RAMs and OMs for prehospital injury research. An explicit structured review of all articles pertaining to each measure was conducted using the previously established methodology developed by the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (“Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures”). Results:  Among the 4,885 articles reviewed, 96 RAMs and/or OMs were identified from the existing literature (January 1958 to February 2010). Only one measure, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), currently meets Level 1 quality of evidence status and a Category 1 (strong) recommendation for use in EMS trauma research. Twelve RAMs or OMs received Category 2 status (promising, but not sufficient current evidence to strongly recommend), including the motor component of GCS, simplified motor score (SMS), the simplified verbal score (SVS), the revised trauma score (RTS), the prehospital index (PHI), EMS provider judgment, the revised trauma index (RTI), the rapid acute physiology score (RAPS), the rapid emergency medicine score (REMS), the field trauma triage (FTT), the pediatric triage rule, and the out‐of‐hospital decision rule for pediatrics. Conclusions:  Using a previously published process, a structured literature review, and consensus expert panel opinion, only the GCS can currently be firmly recommended as a specific RAM or OM for prehospital trauma research (along with core measures that have already been established and published). This effort highlights the paucity of reliable, validated RAMs and OMs currently available for outcomes research in the prehospital setting and hopefully will encourage additional, methodologically sound evaluations of the promising, Category 2 RAMs and OMs, as well as the development of new measures.en_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.titleRisk Adjustment Measures and Outcome Measures for Prehospital Trauma Research: Recommendations from the Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Arizona (DLB, SMK, DWS), Tucson, AZ; the Department of Emergency Medicine, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University (HGG), Greenville, NC; the Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin (EBL), Milwaukee, WI; the Arizona Health Sciences Library, College of Medicine, University of Arizona (DH), Tucson, AZ; and the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center (RFM), Ann Arbor, MI.en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87101/1/j.1553-2712.2011.01148.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01148.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Association of EMS Providers. Emergency Medical Services Clinical Practice and Systems Oversight. San Francisco, CA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaio RF, Garrison HG, Spaite DW, et al. Emergency medical services outcomes project I (EMSOP I): prioritizing conditions for outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med. 1999; 33: 423 – 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeim SM, Spaite DW, Maio RF, et al. Establishing the scope and methodological approach to out‐of‐hospital outcomes and effectiveness research. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11: 1067 – 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpaite DW, Maio R, Garrison HG, et al. Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP) II: developing the foundation and conceptual models for out‐of‐hospital outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 37: 657 – 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarrison HG, Maio RF, Spaite DW, et al. Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project III (EMSOP III): the role of risk adjustment in out‐of‐hospital outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med. 2002; 40: 79 – 88.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaio RF, Garrison HG, Spaite DW, et al. Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP) IV: pain measurement in out‐of‐hospital outcomes research. Ann Emerg Med. 2002; 40: 172 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeim SM, Spaite DW, Maio RF, et al. Risk adjustment and outcome measures for out‐of‐hospital respiratory distress. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11: 1074 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCentre for Evidence Based Medicine. Levels of Evidence. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed Jun 22, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDonabedian A. Advances in health assessment conference discussion panel. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40 ( Suppl 1 ): S183 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFletcher RW, Fletcher SW. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. Vol 5. London, England: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCole BB. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTeasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974; 304: 81 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalestreri M, Czosnyka M, Chatfield DA, et al. Predictive value of Glasgow Ccoma Scale after brain trauma: change in trend over the past ten years. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004; 75: 161 – 2.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavis DP, Serrano JA, Vilke GM, et al. The predictive value of field versus arrival Glasgow Coma Scale score and TRISS calculations in moderate‐to‐severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2006; 60: 985 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavis DP, Vadeboncoeur TF, Ochs M, Poste JC, Vilke GM, Hoyt DB. The association between field Glasgow Coma Scale score and outcome in patients undergoing paramedic rapid sequence intubation. J Emerg Med. 2005; 29: 391 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDemetriades D, Kuncir E, Murray J, Velmahos GC, Rhee P, Chan L. Mortality prediction of head Abbreviated Injury Score and Glasgow Coma Scale: analysis of 7,764 head injuries. J Am Coll Surg. 2004; 199: 216 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceForeman BP, Caesar RR, Parks J, et al. Usefulness of the abbreviated injury score and the injury severity score in comparison to the Glasgow Coma Scale in predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2007; 62: 946 – 50.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGill M, Steele R, Windemuth R, Green SM. A comparison of five simplified scales to the out‐of‐hospital Glasgow Coma Scale for the prediction of traumatic brain injury outcomes. Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 13: 968 – 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGill M, Windemuth R, Steele R, Green SM. A comparison of the Glasgow Coma Scale score to simplified alternative scores for the prediction of traumatic brain injury outcomes. Ann Emerg Med. 2005; 45: 37 – 42.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoldgate A, Ching N, Angonese L. Variability in agreement between physicians and nurses when measuring the Glasgow Coma Scale in the emergency department limits its clinical usefulness. Emerg Med Australas. 2006; 18: 379 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKerby JD, MacLennan PA, Burton JN, McGwin G Jr, Rue LW 3rd. Agreement between prehospital and emergency department glasgow coma scores. J Trauma. 2007; 63: 1026 – 31.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorwood SH, McAuley CE, Berne JD, Vallina VL, Creath RG, McLarty J. A prehospital glasgow coma scale score < or = 14 accurately predicts the need for full trauma team activation and patient hospitalization after motor vehicle collisions. J Trauma. 2002; 53: 503 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRiechers RG 2nd, Ramage A, Brown W, et al. Physician knowledge of the Glasgow Coma Scale. J Neurotrauma. 2005; 22: 1327 – 34.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUdekwu P, Kromhout‐Schiro S, Vaslef S, Baker C, Oller D. Glasgow Coma Scale score, mortality, and functional outcome in head‐injured patients. J Trauma. 2004; 56: 1084 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePal J, Brown R, Fleiszer D. The value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and Injury Severity Score: predicting outcome in multiple trauma patients with head injury. J Trauma. 1989; 29: 746 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAl‐Salamah MA, McDowell I, Stiell IG, et al. Initial emergency department trauma scores from the OPALS study: the case for the motor score in blunt trauma. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11: 834 – 42.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHealey C, Osler TM, Rogers FB, et al. Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor. J Trauma. 2003; 54: 671 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeredith W, Rutledge R, Hansen AR, et al. Field triage of trauma patients based upon the ability to follow commands: a study in 29,573 injured patients. J Trauma. 1995; 38: 129 – 35.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoss SE, Leipold C, Terregino C, O’Malley KF. Efficacy of the motor component of the Glasgow Coma Scale in trauma triage. J Trauma. 1998; 45: 42 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChampion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME. A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma. 1989; 29: 623 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBouillon B, Kramer M, Tiling T, Neugebauer E. [Trauma score systems as instruments in quality control. A prospective study on validation of 7 trauma score systems with 612 trauma patients] [German]. Unfallchirurg. 1993; 96: 55 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBouillon B, Lefering R, Vorweg M, Tiling T, Neugebauer E, Troidl H. Trauma score systems: Cologne validation study. J Trauma. 1997; 42: 652 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEichelberger MR, Gotschall CS, Sacco WJ, Bowman LM, Mangubat EA, Lowenstein AD. A comparison of the trauma score, the revised trauma score, and the pediatric trauma score. Ann Emerg Med. 1989; 18: 1053 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGilpin DA, Nelson PG. Revised trauma score: a triage tool in the accident and emergency department. Injury. 1991; 22: 35 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJennett B, Teasdale G, Braakman R, Minderhoud J, Knill‐Jones R. Predicting outcome in individual patients after severe head injury. Lancet. 1976; 1: 1031 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSasser S. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients. MMWR Recomm Rev. 2009; 58 ( RR‐1 ): 14 – 15.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGabbe BJ, Cameron PA, Finch CF. Is the revised trauma score still useful? ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73: 944 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRhee KJ, Mackenzie JR, Burney RE, et al. Rapid acute physiology scoring in transport systems. Crit Care Med. 1990; 18: 1119 – 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoodacre S, Turner J, Nicholl J. Prediction of mortality among emergency medical admissions. Emerg Med J. 2006; 23: 372 – 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOlsson T, Terent A, Lind L. Rapid Emergency Medicine Score can predict long‐term mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11: 1008 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOlsson T, Terent A, Lind L. Rapid Emergency Medicine score: a new prognostic tool for in‐hospital mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients. J Intern Med. 2004; 255: 579 – 87.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOlsson T, Lind L. Comparison of the rapid emergency medicine score and APACHE II in nonsurgical emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10: 1040 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGill M, Martens K, Lynch EL, Salih A, Green SM. Interrater reliability of 3 simplified neurologic scales applied to adults presenting to the emergency department with altered levels of consciousness. Ann Emerg Med. 2007; 49: 403 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaukoos JS, Gill MR, Rabon RE, Gravitz CS, Green SM. Validation of the Simplified Motor Score for the prediction of brain injury outcomes after trauma. Ann Emerg Med. 2007; 50: 18 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoehler JJ, Baer LJ, Malafa SA, Meindertsma MS, Navitskas NR, Huizenga JE. Prehospital Index: a scoring system for field triage of trauma victims. Ann Emerg Med. 1986; 15: 178 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoehler JJ, Malafa SA, Hillesland J, et al. A multicenter validation of the prehospital index. Ann Emerg Med. 1987; 16: 380 – 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFries GR, McCalla G, Levitt MA, Cordova R. A prospective comparison of paramedic judgment and the trauma triage rule in the prehospital setting. Ann Emerg Med. 1994; 24: 885 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOrnato J,  Mlinek EJ Jr, Craren EJ, Nelson N. Ineffectiveness of the trauma score and the CRAMS scale for accurately triaging patients to trauma centers. Ann Emerg Med. 1985; 14: 1061 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHedges JR, Feero S, Moore B, Haver DW, Shultz B. Comparison of prehospital trauma triage instruments in a semirural population. J Emerg Med. 1987; 5: 197 – 208.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHedges JR, Sacco WJ, Champion HR. An analysis of prehospital care of blunt trauma. J Trauma. 1982; 22: 989 – 93.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceQazi K, Kempf JA, Christopher NC, Gerson LW. Paramedic judgment of the need for trauma team activation for pediatric patients. Acad Emerg Med. 1998; 5: 1002 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMulholland SA, Gabbe BJ, Cameron P. Is paramedic judgement useful in prehospital trauma triage? Injury. 2005; 36: 1298 – 305.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLavoie A, Emond M, Moore L, Camden S, Liberman M. Evaluation of the Prehospital Index, presence of high‐velocity impact and judgment of emergency medical technicians as criteria for trauma triage. CJEM. 2010; 12: 111 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewgard CD, Lewis RJ, Jolly BT. Use of out‐of‐hospital variables to predict severity of injury in pediatric patients involved in motor vehicle crashes. Ann Emerg Med. 2002; 39: 481 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewgard CD, Hui SH, Griffin A, Wuerstle M, Pratt F, Lewis RJ. Prospective validation of an out‐of‐hospital decision rule to identify seriously injured children involved in motor vehicle crashes. Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12: 679 – 87.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith JS Jr, Bartholomew MJ. Trauma index revisited: a better triage tool. Crit Care Med. 1990; 18: 174 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBond RJ, Kortbeek JB, Preshaw RM. Field trauma triage: combining mechanism of injury with the prehospital index for an improved trauma triage tool. J Trauma. 1997; 43: 283 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoront ML, Gotschall CS, Eichelberger MR. Helicopter transport of injured children: system effectiveness and triage criteria. J Pediatr Surg. 1996; 31: 1183 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKellermann AL, Hackman BB, Somes G. Predicting the outcome of unsuccessful prehospital advanced cardiac life support. JAMA. 1993; 270: 1433 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLerner EB, Nichol G, Spaite DW, Garrison HG, Maio RF. A comprehensive framework for determining the cost of an emergency medical services system. Ann Emerg Med. 2007; 49: 304 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpaite DW, Bobrow BJ, Vadeboncoeur TF, et al. The impact of prehospital transport interval on survival in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest: implications for regionalization of post‐resuscitation care. Resuscitation. 2008; 79: 61 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell IG, Nesbitt LP, Pickett W, et al. The OPALS Major Trauma Study: impact of advanced life‐support on survival and morbidity. CMAJ. 2008; 178: 1141 – 52.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell IG, Spaite DW, Field B, et al. Advanced life support for out‐of‐hospital respiratory distress. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 2156 – 64.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell IG, Wells GA, Spaite DW, et al. The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) study Part II: rationale and methodology for trauma and respiratory distress patients. OPALS Study Group. Ann Emerg Med. 1999; 34: 256 – 62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceValenzuela TD, Spaite DW, Meislin HW, Clark LL, Wright AL, Ewy GA. Case and survival definitions in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. Effect on survival rate calculation. JAMA. 1992; 267: 272 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell I, DeMaio V, Nesbitt L, et al. Predictors of survival for out‐of‐hospital respiratory distress patients in the OPALS study [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10: 431 – 2.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell I, Nesbitt L, Wells G, et al. Multicenter controlled clinical trial to evaluate the impact of advanced life support on out‐of‐hospital chest pain patients [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10: 501 – 2.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell IG, Wells GA, Spaite DW, et al. The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study: rationale and methodology for cardiac arrest patients. Ann Emerg Med. 1998; 32: 180 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichard J, Stiell I, Osmond M, et al. How are pediatric patients managed by EMS and what are their outcomes? [abstract] Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10: 443.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNichol G, Stiell I, Blackburn, et al. Quality of life outcomes for respiratory distress patients treated by EMS [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10: 449.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWare JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36‐item short‐form health survey (SF‐36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30: 473 – 83.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNichol G, Laupacis A, Stiell IG, et al. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of potential improvements to emergency medical services for victims of out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1996; 27: 711 – 20.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell IG, Wells GA, Field BJ, et al. Improved out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest survival through the inexpensive optimization of an existing defibrillation program: OPALS study phase II. Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support. JAMA. 1999; 281: 1175 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNichol G, Stiell IG, Hebert P, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Laupacis A. What is the quality of life for survivors of cardiac arrest? A prospective study. Acad Emerg Med. 1999; 6: 95 – 102.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStiell I, De Maio V, Nichol G, et al. Predictors of good quality of life in prehospital in prehospital cardiac arrest survivors [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med. 2000; 7: 425.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1553-2712.2011.01148.x.pdf
Size:
937.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.