Comparison of the 1999 and 2006 trauma triage guidelines: Where do patients go

E. Brooke Lerner, Manish N. Shah, Robert A. Swor, Jeremy T. Cushman, Clare E. Guse, Karen Brasel, Alan Blatt, Gregory J. Jurkovich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

35 Scopus citations


Background. In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a revised Field Triage Decision Scheme. It is unknown how this modified scheme will affect the number of patients identified by emergency medical services (EMS) for transport to a trauma center. Objectives. To determine the change in the number of patients transported by EMS who meet the 2006 scheme, compared with the 1999 scheme, and to determine how the scheme change would affect under- and overtriage rates. Methods. The EMS providers in charge of care for injured adult patients transported to a regional trauma center in three mid-sized cities were interviewed immediately after completing transport. All injured patients were included, regardless of severity. The interview included patient demographics, vital signs, apparent anatomic injury, and the mechanism of injury. Included patients were then followed through hospital discharge. The 1999 and 2006 scheme criteria were each retrospectively applied to the collected data. The numbers of patients identified by the two schemes were determined. Patients were considered to have needed a trauma center if they had nonorthopedic surgery within 24 hours, were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), or died. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics including 95 confidence intervals. Results. EMS interviews were conducted for 11,892 patients and outcome data were unavailable for one patient. The average patient age was 48 years; 51% of the patients were men. Providers reported bringing 54% of the enrolled patients to the trauma center based on their local trauma protocol. Medical record review identified 12% of the enrolled patients as needing a trauma center. Use of the 2006 scheme would have resulted in 1,423 fewer patients (12%; 95% confidence interval [CI]:11%-13%) being identified as needing a trauma center by EMS providers (40%; 95% CI: 39%-41% versus 28%; 95% CI: 27%-29%). Of those patients, 1,344 (94%) did not actually need the resources of a trauma center, whereas 78 (6%) actually needed the resources of a trauma center and would have been undertriaged. Conclusion. Use of the 2006 Field Triage Decision Scheme would have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of patients identified as needing the resources of a trauma center. These changes reduced overtriage while causing a small increase in the number of patients who would have been undertriaged.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)12-17
Number of pages6
JournalPrehospital Emergency Care
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 2010
Externally publishedYes


  • decision scheme
  • emergency medical services
  • emergency medical technicians
  • triage
  • wounds and injury

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of the 1999 and 2006 trauma triage guidelines: Where do patients go'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this