Undertriage

Using a multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach to decrease
undertriage and overtriage of pediatric trauma patients
Mauricio A. Escobar Jr. ⁎, Carolynn J. Morris
Mary Bridge Children's, Tacoma, WA
a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 December 2015
Received in revised form 8 April 2016
Accepted 11 April 2016
Key words:
Trauma triage
Process improvement
Pediatric trauma
Background: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) view over- and undertriage
rates based on trauma team activation (TTA) criteria as surrogate markers for quality trauma patient care.
Undertriage occurs when classifying patients as not needing a TTA when they do. Over-triage occurs when a
TTA is unnecessarily activated. ACS-COT recommends undertriage b5% and overtriage 25–35%.
We sought to improve the under-triage and over-triage rates at our Level II Pediatric Trauma Center by updating
our outdated trauma team activation criteria in an evidence-based fashion to better identify severely injured chil-
dren and improving adherance to following established trauma team activation criteria.
Methods: This study was designed prospectively as a Process Improvement Patient Safety (PIPS) project in two
phases. Data was obtained from our trauma registry. Prior to the initiation of Phase I, the TTA was modified
using the best available evidence at the time. A Base Station report was modified to include elements of the
TTA to be checked when EMS called prior to arrival to guide in activation. Phase I of the study (April 1-June 30,
2011) involved improving adherence to activating a trauma according to our newly revised TTA criteria. Phase
II of the study (July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012) moved the trauma team activation responsibility primarily to nursing
(collaborating with MDs) and including activation criteria regarding transfers-in from outside hospitals. Triage
rates were calculated using the Cribari method: undertriage = patients with an ISS N15 for which a major or
modified was not activated, and overtriage = patients with an ISS b16 for which a major was activated.
Results: 2011 Q1 YTD data was used as a baseline comparison. Baseline undertriage was 15% and overtriage was
75%. Phase I demonstrated 90% use of the redesigned Base Station report reflecting the new TTA criteria and was
validated by RN/MD signatures. This resulted in an undertriage rate of 10% (12/118) and an overtriage rate of 20%
(1/5). During Phase II, there was 100% use of the newly redesigned Base Station report. Phase IIa (concluding the
data collection for 2011) demonstrated an undertriage rate of 8.4% (19/226) and an overtriage rate of 38% (5/13).
Data during Phase IIb indicated an undertriage rate of 4.7% (12/251 pts) and overtriage rate of 54% (7/13). During
baseline phase of the study, 50% of major patients went to the OR from the ER. During Phase I all major activations
required admission to the PICU (4) or the OR (1). Finally, during Q2 2012 (the last quarter of Phase II), 25% of ma-
jors went to OR (2/8), 50% to ICU (4/8), 12.5% to Med-Surg (1/8), and 12.5% to home (1/8).
Conclusions: Standardization of process resulted in improved, sustainable under-/overtriage rates. Undertriage
rates dropped from 15% to 5% undertriage, the ACS-recommended standard. Appropriate triage appears to
have correlated with appropriate utilization of resources.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The American College of Surgeons and the Washington State Depart-
ment of Health (DOH) view overtriage and undertriage rates based on
trauma team activation (TTA) criteria as surrogate markers for quality
trauma patient care. The TTA criteria was adapted from the field triage
decision scheme recommended by the CDC [1]. It is an internal hospital
triage tool that determines if an injured patient requires trauma team
activation, followed by the tier of activation (major versus modified uti-
lizing our institution's nomenclature). The optimal triage of trauma pa-
tients is thought to translate into decreased transport times by
prehospital personnel to definitive care, better outcomes for injured pa-
tients, and improved resource utilization by having the appropriate
level of resources available for standardized evaluation of these patients.
Both are now required to be tracked and reported to the monthly trau-
ma multi-disciplinary meeting by the current Resources for the Optimal
Care of the Injured Patient [2].
Leveling triage accuracy and consistency has a positive impact on pa-
tient safety and delivery of quality trauma care. The American College of
Surgeons-Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) recommended that trauma
Journal of Pediatric Surgery 51 (2016) 1518–1525
The authors confirm there are no conflicts of interest in the manuscript, including fi-
nancial, consultant, institutional and other relationships that might lead to bias or a conflict
of interest. The manuscript was presented as a podium talk at the 2ND Annual Meeting of
the Pediatric Trauma Society in Scottsdale, AZ on November 6, 2015.
⁎ Corresponding author at: PO Box 5299, MS: 311-3W-SUR, Tacoma, WA 98415.
Tel.: +253 403 4613; fax: +253 403 1641.
E-mail addresses: Mauricio.Escobar@multicare.org (M.A. Escobar),
Carolynn.Morris@Multicare.org (C.J. Morris).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.04.010
0022-3468/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Pediatric Surgery
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpedsurg

programs establish a goal to maintain undertriage below 5–10%, and
they defined an acceptable overtriage rate of up to 30–50% at the time
of the study. Currently, the ACS-COT recommends undertriage b5%
and overtriage 25–35% [2]. Undertriage is defined as a triage decision
that classifies patients as not needing a TTA, when in fact they do.
Undertriage is a medical problem, which may result in adverse patient
outcomes. When a trauma case is overtriaged, a TTA is activated when
criteria was not met, over utilizing resources.
To that end the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST)
has published recommendations based on Level 3 recommendations.
Pediatric triage should include:
• A two-tiered triage system in the ED by physicians can effectively re-
duce unnecessary resource utilization.
• Mechanism of injury alone may not be useful in triaging pediatric
patients.
• A combination of physiologic and anatomic parameters with mecha-
nism provides better triage utilizing age-appropriate vital signs.
These recommendations were based on a systematic review of mod-
erate quality data [3].
The authors sought to improve the undertriage and overtriage rates
at our community Level II Pediatric Trauma Center by 1) improving ac-
curacy in following established trauma team activation criteria and
2) modifying established trauma team activation criteria in an
evidence-based fashion to better identify severely injured children.
We implemented a process improvement patient safety (PIPS) project
utilizing a Lean 4-step problem solving approach methodology to better
understand our current triage rates. We then asked the question if
undertriage would improve further if we adjusted the countermeasure
by moving leveling responsibility to Emergency Department (ED)
nurses for all pediatric trauma (using current TTA criteria and a revised
Base Station form) (Figs. 2 and 3, respectively). Increasing awareness of
the importance of appropriate resource utilization prompted the devel-
opment of a systematized procedure for impacting under- and
overtriage rates within our large, community health care system.
1. Methods
1.1. Lean process
Pediatric trauma services led a PIPS project at Mary Bridge Children's
Hospital (MBCH), a Level II Pediatric Trauma Center in Tacoma,
Washington from 2011 through June 30, 2012, with data analysis com-
pleted in September 2012. The baseline phase of the study was Q1 YTD
2011. A Lean 4-Step Problem Solving Approach (Plan-Do-Check-Adjust)
was developed by the Trauma Program Manager (TPM - CJM) and ap-
proved by the Trauma Medical Director (TMD - MAE) [4]. Trauma ser-
vices worked in collaboration with MBCH Emergency Department/
Base Station leadership to provide education and training to staff
(MDs & RNs) that determine the level of trauma team activation. The
Trauma Registrar tracked data through the trauma registry and made
clerical revisions to the TTA criteria and Base Station documents as nec-
essary. The TPM routinely reported PIPS progress at MBCH pediatric
trauma quality assurance (QA) and Multidisciplinary Committee
Meetings.
1.2. Trauma team activation redesign
The TTA was critically reviewed and revised during the baseline
phase of the study. The authors assumed leadership of the Trauma De-
partment in 2010. It was noted at that time that the TTA had not been
reviewed, revised, or renewed since 2007 (Fig. 1). Three tiers of activa-
tion existed at that time, and several new pediatric criteria were not
considered in the original TTA. Furthermore, mechanism of injury was
the branching point in the decision making tree for TTA. The TTA criteria
was updated based on guidelines published by the American College of
Surgeons, Committee of Trauma (ACS-COT), WA State DOH Governor's
Steering Committee on EMS and Trauma (WA DOH-EMS/Trauma) and
CDC with a focus on head injuries, the primary finding in undertriage
patients pre-study [1,2]. Other drivers for the selected changes included
a thorough review of the then current literature and Washington State
Administrative Code (WAC) [5–8]. The Society of Trauma Nurses List-
Serve was also used to obtain and review outside pediatric trauma hos-
pital policy/procedures for determining appropriate levels of activation.
The initial changes implemented in the TTA are listed in Table 1.
The Trauma QA Committee and the WA DOH-EMS/Trauma ap-
proved the MBCH trauma team activation criteria for use in triaging
EMS transport from the scene, arrivals to the ED by privately owned ve-
hicles (POV), and trauma transfers. The TTA criteria outlined in boxes A-
B-C (and eventually box D) determined the appropriate level of activa-
tion (major or modified for our two-tiered system). The elements of the
newly designed TTA were then imbedded in the Base Station report, so
that when EMS called in a report, the elements could quickly be checked
to help determine a) the need for activation and b) what level of activa-
tion was required. Under- and overtriage rates were then calculated by
using the Cribari grid (Fig. 4) [2].
1.3. PIPS design
Data was obtained from our trauma registry as follows: (1) 2011 Q1
YTD data was used as a Baseline (pre-study); (2) Phase I (April 1
through June 30, 2011) of the study involved using the newly updated
TTA. The MBCH Base Station form was revised to reflect key components
of TTA criteria (Fig. 3). All pediatric trauma activations were evaluated
using the Cribari grid for triage accuracy (Fig. 4) [2]. Essentially,
undertriage was defined as patients with an ISS N15 for which a major
or modified was not activated, and overtriage was defined as patients
with an ISS b16 for which a major was activated.
Structured education and training for MDs and RN/charge nurses oc-
curred during this phase, and signatures were required of the MD and
RN filling out the Base Station report. (3) Phase II (July 1, 2011 through
June 30, 2012) of the study moved the trauma team activation respon-
sibility primarily to nursing (with a component of collaboration with
MBED MDs). Data was analyzed during Q3 2012 and continuing trends
were documented. A second wave of structured education occurred
with all RN staff. Box (D) was added to the TTA criteria to address
transfers-in from outside hospitals (Fig. 2).
2. Results
The MBCH undertriage rate during Q1 2011 YTD at baseline was 15%.
The Cribari grid for the baseline data is presented as Table 2. 72 trauma
cases (4 major [6%], 18 modified [25%]) were evaluated at baseline, and
10/68 cases were undertriaged. Our overtriage rate was 75%, which in-
dicated criteria were not being applied consistently or accurately in 3/
4 cases. We defined accuracy of the use of the TTA as 85% based on
the undertriage rate.
Phase I was April 1 through June 30, 2011 (Q2 2011). The main
goal during this phase was to assess accuracy of the use of the TTA
tool and track under-/overtriage rates. During this phase, there was
90% use of the newly redesigned Base Station report. There were
123 total traumas during Q2 2011 (5 major [b1%], 36 modified
[29%]), and the Cribari grid for Q2 2011 data is presented as
Table 3. Undertriage rates improved to 10% (12/118), and overtriage
dropped to 20% (1/5) during Phase I.
Phase II was July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012, with an analysis
completed and data check through September 30, 2012. Phase II was
evaluated for Q3 and Q4 2011 (IIa) and Q1 and Q2 2012 (IIb)
(Tables 4a and 4b). There were 503 total traumas during Phase II, 26
(5%) of which were Major, and 180 (36%) of which were modified
traumas. Phase II continued to demonstrate improving under- and
overtriage rates. Phase IIa (concluding the data collection for 2011)
1519M.A. Escobar Jr., C.J. Morris / Journal of Pediatric Surgery 51 (2016) 1518–1525

demonstrated an undertriage rate of 8.4% (19/226) and an overtriage
rate of 38% (5/13). Data during Phase IIb indicated an undertriage rate
of 4.7% (12/251 pts) and overtriage rate of 54% (7/13). During Phase II,
there was 100% use of the newly redesigned Base Station report, and
MD/RN signatures validated this. Fig. 5 demonstrates the under-/
overtriage trends throughout the study.
An analysis was retrospectively completed at the time of manuscript
preparation to understand more about whether the patients in the
major group really needed that level of service based on resource
needs. Or, in other words, if they were activated as a major, did they re-
quire a trip to the OR, PICU or other immediate interventions? Baseline
had 4 majors with the following dispositions: OR (2), Med-Surg (1), and
home (1). 15 modifieds went home, and 3 were unable to be located
within the registry at time of retrospective review. Phase I had 5 majors
with the following dispositions: OR (1) and ICU (4). 16 modifieds went
home, 16 were admitted to Med-Surg, one went to the OR, and three
were admitted to the ICU. Finally, Q2 2012 was evaluated (the last quar-
ter of Phase II – conclusion of the study). There were 8 majors and 79
modifieds. The major dispositions included: OR (2), ICU (4), Med-Surg
(1), and home (1). 46 modifieds went home, 24 were admitted to
Med-Surg, five went to the OR, and three were admitted to the ICU.
One was transferred out because of lack of plastic surgery coverage at
the time.
3. Discussion
The “Orange Book” (Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Pa-
tient) clearly states the prehospital trauma system is driven by the
goal of getting the right patient to the right place at the right time [2].
As noted above undertriage is a medical problem, and overtriage is a re-
source utilization issue. In general, priority has been given to reduction
of undertriage, because undertriage may result in preventable mortality
or morbidity from delays in definitive care [2]. Overtriage typically im-
pacts the improper (and costly) inappropriate use of resources. This
Fig. 1. Trauma team activation tool - 2007.
Table 1
Initial changes implemented to the Trauma Team Activation (TTA) tool during the baseline
phase of the study.
• Reorganizing the algorithm flowchart to reflect physiologic compromise first
rather than mechanism of injury
• Removal of the third tier of activation – “Limited Activation”.
• Decreasing fall height from N20 ft to N10 ft.
• Maintaining transferred patient form other hospital receiving blood to maintain
VS.
• Addition of suspected non-accidental trauma.
• Addition of isolated injury (femur fx, liver or spleen injury, open/depressed
skull fx).
• Addition of impending operation from any surgical service for a patient at risk
for multisystem injury.
• Addition of high energy mechanism with potential for occult injury.
• Addition of ED MD Discretion.
• Addition of altered mental status associated with injury.
• Addition of age-specific hypotension in children.
• Addition of GSW(s) to the neck, chest, abd, or groin requiring automatic major
activation.
• Addition of allowing for a Modified Activation for other stable penetrating
injury.
• Addition of anticipated arrival of N3 seriously injured patients.
• Addition of inability to intubate in prehospital setting with suspected need for
surgical airway.
1520 M.A. Escobar Jr., C.J. Morris / Journal of Pediatric Surgery 51 (2016) 1518–1525

does not typically affect the trauma care of a patient directly, except in
situations of disaster and mass casualty events.
The Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient handbook pro-
poses two ways to evaluate undertriage (and overtriage) within a trau-
ma region [2]. One method is to identify all the potentially preventable
deaths that occur within a regionalized trauma system. Another method
is to determine how many major trauma patients were transported
incorrectly to a non-trauma center. Utilizing the latter method we
adapted the Matrix method or Cribari grid (Fig. 4) to calculate our inter-
nal overtriage and undertriage rates by tracking the accuracy of our TTA
based on our TTA tool (Fig. 2) [2]. It should be noted that the Cribari
method is based on ISS, and the suggested protocol in the text is primar-
ily based on consensus opinion because of limited literature available to
assist in developing the protocol [9]. The authors believe the inclusion of
Fig. 2. Trauma team activation tool - 2012.

inappropriately activating a major trauma as a modified (box E in Fig. 4)
in the undertriage rate calculation reflects the inappropriate activation
of trauma at the appropriate tier, rather than just using box H in the cal-
culation (no TTA). Many institutions may not have their trauma, gener-
al, or pediatric surgeon automatically respond to a midlevel or modified
TTA, and box E suggests that a major trauma did not have a surgeon ap-
propriately respond in a timely manner (a requirement for every major
trauma). While this has certainly been the gold standard in the past,
newer studies reviewing the actual utilization of resources (not just
the severity of the injury) suggest that perhaps a better way to review
use of trauma resources are based on the need for intervention rather
than ISS [9,10].
Falcone, et al. [10] reported an analysis of injured children undergo-
ing trauma activation and examined the number of high resource inter-
ventions needed to validate the need for trauma team activation. Those
most predictive of using a high-level resource were a gunshot wound to
the abdomen, blood given before arrival, traumatic arrest, tachycardia/
poor perfusion, and age-appropriate hypotension. The addition of
tachycardia/poor perfusion and pretrauma center resuscitation (with
greater than 40 mL/kg) resulted in eight criteria with an overtriage of
Fig. 3. Mary Bridge base station form.

39% and an undertriage of 10.5%. Nevertheless, outcomes studies related
to trauma team activation have not been standardized in terms of re-
sources analyzed [11,12].
A recent multicenter study attempted to define a consensus-based
criterion standard definition for the highest-level pediatric trauma
team activation by using a modified Delphi technique to develop a list
of criteria that would form the criterion standard definition for the
highest-level pediatric trauma team activation [9]. The expert panel
agreed upon 12 criteria that included time-sensitive interventions. In-
terventions meeting criteria within two hours of arrival included:
need for advanced airway, tube thoracostomy, blood transfusion,
pericardiocentesis, and thoracotomy. Interventions meeting criteria
within four hours of arrival included: major operative intervention, in-
terventional radiology, cesarean section, vasopressors, or burr hole.
The follow criteria were included regardless of time of presentation:
spinal cord injury or spinal fracture and death in the ED resulting from
their injury [9].
Our PIPS presented in the current study was not designed to evalu-
ate the outcomes of patients activated during the study period. Rather,
the purpose of this project was to analyze the effect of a Lean-
designed PIPS on under- and overtriage rates to determine if triage
rates could be improved at a community pediatric trauma center. This
weakness in the study is further discussed below. Nevertheless, a retro-
spective evaluation of the trauma registry was performed during the
preparation of the manuscript. A review of the data demonstrates that
during the baseline phase of the study, although 75% of our major pa-
tients were overtriaged according to ISS, 50% went to the OR from the
ER, suggesting our tool was not appropriately matching patients to
their needed resources. During Phase I all major activations did in fact
require admission to the PICU (4) or the OR (1). Finally, Q2 2012 was
Fig. 4. Cribari grid methodology.
Fig. 5. Percentage of undertriage/overtriage during the study period.

evaluated (the last quarter of Phase II). 25% of majors went to OR (2/8),
50% to ICU (4/8), 12.5% to Med-Surg (1/8), and 12.5% to home (1/8).
This did suggest that improving our triage rates did correlate with prop-
er utilization of resources and may have impacted patient outcomes.
The PIPS was designed using Lean methodology (PDCA cycle). The
Plan was reviewing our current situation at baseline and designing the
study. The Do was implementing the change in the TTA and the Base
Station report and assessing the accuracy of their use. The Check was
reviewing the changes in undertriage and overtriage rates following im-
plementation. The Adjust involved shifting responsibility for trauma
team activation solely from the ED physicians to a shared responsibility
with the ED charge nurses.
A “5 Whys Analysis” was done to understand (1) if our triage tool
was accurate and (2) if a standardized triage process would improve
our metrics. The point of this exercise is to iteratively ask the question
“Why?” to determine the root cause analysis of a problem, of which ask-
ing why 5 times is typically required to solve the problem. To test this,
ED physicians triaged pediatric trauma patients from April 1 through
June 30, 2012 (Phase I) using the revised/approved trauma team activa-
tion criteria (Fig. 2) [4]. Accuracy improved from baseline 85% to 90% in-
dicating tool effectiveness. This reflected an undertriage rate of 9.4%
(Fig. 5). Phase I of our study demonstrated accuracy of our TTA Criteria.
However, the goal was N95% usage of the TTA as reflected by the use of
the Base Station report and b5% resulting undertriage. The pilot was
then moved to Phase II.
We sought to understand if triage accuracy would improve further if
we adjusted the countermeasure by moving leveling responsibility to
the ED charge nurses for all pediatric trauma (by using current TTA
criteria and the revised Base Station form). Beginning July 1, 2012
through September 30, 2012 responsibility moved to RNs who were en-
couraged to collaborate with MDs for consensus. Only MDs were able to
upgrade the TTA level. Individual feedback and coaching was provided
by the TPM. During this phase, it was determined that trauma transfers
into MBCH from outside hospitals were either (1) not getting triaged
per our TTA Criteria upon arrival to the ED or (2) getting directly admit-
ted to the hospital, bypassing the ED without a complete ATLS trauma
evaluation, resulting in undertriage of severely-injured children. Our
TTA Criteria was revised to include box D for trauma transfers (Fig. 2).
Phase II of our study demonstrated continued improvement by moving
leveling (triage) responsibility primarily to nursing and adding box D
regarding transfers-in from outside hospitals.
The novel (although certainly not unique) idea occurred during
Phase II of our study. We certainly saw improvement after we embed-
ded our activation criteria within the Base Station report (MB serves
as pediatric medical control for Pierce County, Washington). But the
significant decrease in undertriage to b5% occurred when the charge
nurses were empowered to activate a trauma using the TTA.
This drop in undertriage rate was monitored closely. The inherent
risk of becoming too sensitive is seeing a concomitant increase in
overtriage. This was not the case, however. The overtriage dropped
from 75% to 54% with fluctuations as low as 25%, but by the end of the
study period it never again reached 75% [2]. Box D was added to the
TTA to guide activations of trauma transfers. This also addressed the
complex issue of secondary overtriage in pediatric trauma transfers
(unnecessary transfers to a pediatric trauma center based on ISS and
lengths of stay) [13].
Our performance was sustained by hardwiring a standardized pro-
cess resulting in improved patient safety and delivery of quality trauma
care (Fig. 5). One of the key aspects to success was engaging the ED MDs
and RNs. The TPM provided continual feedback and education to the
charge nurses. Autonomy, mastery, and purpose were stressed with
the ultimate goal being to activate the patient at the appropriate level
to have the patient get the right care at the right time. The PIPS project
resulted in increased engagement and strengthening relationships be-
tween the trauma department and the ED.
The authors acknowledge several weaknesses of the current article.
First, this is clearly a PIPS project rather than a hypothesis driven
study. Nevertheless, we feel that it is important to note that community
Level II Pediatric Trauma centers can execute a project of this magnitude
that should improve the resource utilization for the care of injured chil-
dren in their region. The changes to the TTA resulted from a thorough
review of the then current literature and evaluation of ACS-COT and
CDC recommendations, and Washington State DOH requirements [5–8].
Second, the project is an analysis of the effect of PIPS on under- and
overtriage rates. Outcomes of patients were not analyzed formally at the
time, and thus the authors are only able to report the basic outcomes
within our cohort of injured patients. Nevertheless, the trauma commit-
tee did review the literature following the conclusion of the PIPS project
to further refine the TTA. This prompted a second revision of the TTA
after noting an increased overtriage rate in our specific subset of pa-
tients that were transferred in (the newly created box D during the
study) resulting better utilization of resources at our Level II Pediatric
Trauma center.
In conclusion, the authors believe patient safety should be improved
by reducing harm to individual patients from undertriage of severe in-
jures versus overutilization of systems resources because of overtriage
of lesser injuries. Modifying the TTA and decreasing the variation in its
application resulted in improved TTA accuracy. Further, the appropriate
use of the TTA resulted in appropriate matching of resource utilization
to injury severity. Finally, empowering the nursing staff in the ED to
Table 2
Baseline Cribari grid (Q1 2011).
Baseline Cribari: Quarter 1 2011 (January 1–March 31, 2011)
ISS 1–15 ISS 16–75 Total
Full trauma team activation 3 1 4
Modified trauma team activation 15 3 18
No trauma team activation 43 7 50
72
Table 3
Phase I Cribari grid (Q2 2011).
Quarter 2 2011 (April 1–June 30, 2011)
123
Table 4a
Phase IIa Cribari grid (Q3 & Q4 2011).
July 1–December 31, 2011
239
Table 4b
Phase IIb Cribari grid (Q1 & Q2 2012).
January 1, 2012–June 30, 2012
264

appropriately activate a trauma was the adjustment that ultimately re-
sulted in sustainable improvement.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge and thank Rachel Parker and
Heidi Mallrie, our Trauma Registrars past and present, respectively, for
their contribution to this project.
References
[1] Sasser SM, H.R., Faul M, Sugerman D, Pearson, WS, Dulski T, Wald MM, Jurkovich GJ,
Newgard CD, Lerner, EB, Cooper A, Wang SC, Henry, MC, Salomone, JP, Galli, RL
Guidelines For Field Triage of injured patients: Recommendations of the National
Expert Panel On Field Triage, 2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Mor-
bidity and Mortality Weekly Report MMWR 61, 23.
[2] Trauma A.C.o.S.-C.o. Resources for optimal Care of the Injured Patient. In: C.C.,
Rotando MF, Smith RS, editors. Committee on Trauma. American College of Sur-
geons; 2014. p. 221.
[3] Group T.E.P.M.G.W. Triage of the trauma patient. 2010 [Available from:] http://www.
east.org/education/practice-management-guidelines/triage-of-the-trauma-patient.
[4] Graban M. Lean hospitals: Improving quality, patient safety, and employee satisfac-
tion. New York, NY: CRC Press; 2009 252.
[5] Simon B, Gabor R, Letourneau P. Secondary triage of the injured pediatric patient
within the trauma center: Support for a selective resource-sparing two-stage sys-
tem. Pediatr Emerg Care 2004;20(1):5–11.
[6] Nasr A, et al. External validation and modification of a pediatric trauma triage tool. J
Trauma 2007;62(3):606–9.
[7] Kouzminova N, et al. The efficacy of a two-tiered trauma activation system at a Level
I Trauma Center. J Trauma 2009;67(4):829–33.
[8] Mukherjee K, et al. Physiologically focused triage criteria improve utilization of pediatric
surgeon-directed trauma teams and reduce costs. J Pediatr Surg 2010;45(6):1315–23.
[9] Lerner EB, et al. A consensus-based criterion standard definition for pediatric pa-
tients who needed the highest-level trauma team activation. J Trauma Acute Care
Surg 2015;78(3):634–8.
[10] Falcone Jr RA, et al. A multicenter prospective analysis of pediatric trauma activation
criteria routinely used in addition to the six criteria of the American College of Sur-
geons. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73(2):377–84 [discussion 384].
[11] Sola JE, et al. Criteria for safe cost-effective pediatric trauma triage: Prehospital eval-
uation and distribution of injured children. J Pediatr Surg 1994;29(6):738–41.
[12] Dowd MD, et al. Maximizing the sensitivity and specificity of pediatric trauma team
activation criteria. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7(10):1119–25.
[13] Goldstein SD, et al. Secondary overtriage in pediatric trauma: Can unnecessary pa-
tient transfers be avoided? J Pediatr Surg 2015;50(6):1028–31.

Undertriage

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Undertriage

Similar to Undertriage (20)

Undertriage