Trauma Secondary Overtriage and Cost
Garth H. Utter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34123
2024-09-21
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:For injured patients, receiving the right care at the right time and right place is a laudable and impactful goal but one that arguably remains largely aspirational for many who are injured far from a hospital with the greatest specialization in care of the injured, a level 1 trauma center. Triage—or sorting of patients to match their needs with the resources and capabilities of clinicians—both during the prehospital phase (ie, primary triage) and after initial in-hospital evaluation (ie, transfer from one hospital to another [secondary triage]) is an inherently imperfect process. Triaging patients who could have received appropriate care at less capable hospitals to highly capable ones, or "overtriage," wastes resources and potentially overburdens highly capable hospitals such that outcomes in general might worsen if the high patient volume cannot be managed well, 1 but triaging patients to hospitals with insufficient capabilities to meet patient needs, or "undertriage," is clearly associated with inadequate or at least delayed care. This balance of the risks of secondary overtriage and undertriage is the context underlying the study by Tillmann and colleagues, 2 who evaluate the health care costs associated with the transfer of patients with minor injuries from nontrauma centers to trauma centers in Ontario, Canada. The authors marshalled several data sources to examine total health care costs within 30 days after minor injuries (defined as survival >24 hours, Injury Severity Score <16, and none of a predetermined set of critical injuries) among adult patients who presented to a nontrauma center, comparing costs among 12 652 patients who were transferred to a trauma center with those among 22 029 similar patients who remained hospitalized at the nontrauma center. Costs among transferred patients were a modest 6.5% (95% CI, 4.4%-8.5%) higher than those among nontransferred patients, and 44.9% of transferred patients were discharged from the trauma center emergency department. As the authors describe, we know from prior studies that the costs of care are higher at trauma centers than nontrauma hospitals. For severely injured patients, trauma centers provide superior care that most would consider worth the extra cost, but patients with minor injuries do not so clearly benefit. Is the transfer of patients with minor injuries, specifically, who, in aggregate, do not seem to have better outcomes at trauma centers, associated with any differences in health care costs? One could plausibly imagine any of the possibilities—decreased costs with transfer, no difference, or increased costs—each of which could have different policy implications. Transfers are dependent on the context in which they occur; some systems have robust specialist support and comfort level with treating most minor injuries, and others emphatically do not, resulting in liberal transfer thresholds. Systems also differ functionally in the reasons for transfer, with some focused on clinician judgment and others more heavily reliant on defined criteria or injuries. In addition, the costs of care in Canada—and its overarching system of payment—may not translate well to those in other countries. For example, in the hospital-centric US health care system, depending on the payer mix of the involved patients, overtriage may actually help financially sustain both referring (nontrauma) and receiving (trauma) centers. 3 For all these reasons, the authors' findings may or may not be representative of, or have the same implications in, other regions. A key challenge in any comparison of transferred vs nontransferred patients is selection bias from the inscrutable issue of what prompted the transfer. Although Tillmann et al 2 attempted to account for differences between transferred and nontransferred patients with propensity score matching, almost certainly there is some degree of residual confounding that was not captured—details about the anatomic nature of injuries (fractures, intracranial hemorrhage, or intra-abdominal injury), physiologic derangement, comorbidities, or patient preferences—that might be associated with both the likelihood of transfer and increased costs. The concept of overtriage itself rests on a vague definition. It is challenging retrospectively, let alone prospectively, to assess which patients with minor injuries truly warranted transfer. "Minor injury" (ie, the lack of a major injury) includes some characteristics that are unknowable at the time of triage and merely represents a construct that the care probably could have been provided at any hospital. However, even minor injuries sometimes require expertise unavailable at nontrauma centers, and—although the authors observed virtually no differences in hospital disposition (eAppendix 3, eTable 8 in their Supplement 1)—transfer may have improved outcomes, even if only for function, quality -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal