• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.141-147
• /
• 2005

Purpose: Recently, The new Injury Severity Score (NISS) has become a more accurate predictor of mortality than the traditional Injury Severity Score (ISS) in the trauma population. Trauma Score Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method, regarded as the gold standard for mortality prediction in trauma patients, still contains the ISS as an essential factor within its formula. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a simple modification of the TRISS by replacing the ISS with the NISS would improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality in a trauma population with blunt head and neck trauma. Objects and Methods: The study population consisted of 641 patients from a regional emergency medical center in Kyoungsangnam-do. Demographic data, clinical information, the final diagnosis, and the outcome for each patient were collected in a retrospective manner. the ISS, NISS, TRISS, and modified TRISS were calculated for each patients. The discrimination and the calibration of the ISS, NISS, modified TRISS and conventional TRISS models were compared using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, areas under the ROC curve (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics. Results: The AUC of the ISS, NISS, modified TRISS, and conventional TRISS were 0.885, 0.941, 0.971, and 0.918 respectively. Statistical differences were found between the ISS and the NISS (p=0.008) and between the modified TRISS and the conventional TRISS (p=0.009). Hosmer-Lemeshow chi square values were 13.2, 2.3, 50.1, and 13.8, respectively; only the conventional TRISS failed to achieve the level of and an excellent calibration model (p<0.001). Conclusion: The modified TRISS is a more accurate predictor of in-hospital mortality than the conventional TRISS in a trauma population of blunt head and neck trauma.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.35-40
• /
• 2006

Purpose: Injuries are the third leading cause of death in Korea. Isolated chest injury is not uncommon and shows high mortality and morbidity. Several scoring systems are used for triage and stratification for trauma patients, but no standard system is accepted. We aimed to analyze the accuracy of identification of isolated chest injury by using several scoring systems. Methods: We reviewed a total of 75 patients admitted with isolated chest injury between January 2005 and October 2005. Medical records were reviewed by using the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). The scoring systems were compared by using statistics methods. Results: The overall predictive accuracy of the TRISS was 12.5%, 12.0% greater than those of the RTS and the ISS. By using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, the TRISS showed an excellent discriminative power (AUROC 0.931) compared to the ISS (AUROC 0.926) and the RTS (AUROC 0.872). Conclusion: Compared with the RTS and the ISS, the TRISS is an easily applied tool with excellent prognostic abilities for isolated chest trauma patients. However, the TRISS, the ISS, and the RTS showed high specificity and low sensitivity, so another scoring system is required for triage and stratification of isolated chest injury patients.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.54 no.1
• /
• pp.42-46
• /
• 2013

Objective : Despite several limitations, the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) is normally used to evaluate trauma systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the preventable trauma death rate using the TRISS method in severe trauma patients with traumatic brain injury using our emergency department data. Methods : The use of the TRISS formula has been suggested to consider definitively preventable death (DP); the deaths occurred with a probability of survival (Ps) higher than 0.50 and possible preventable death (PP); the deaths occurred with a Ps between 0.50 and 0.25. Deaths in patients with a calculated Ps of less than 0.25 is considered as non-preventable death (NP). A retrospective case review of deaths attributed to mechanical trauma occurring between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 was conducted. Results : A total of 565 consecutive severe trauma patients with ISS>15 or Revised Trauma Score<7 were admitted in our institute. We excluded a total of 24 patients from our analysis : 22 patients younger than 15 years, and 2 patients with burned injury. Of these, 221 patients with head injury were analyzed in the final study. One hundred eighty-two patients were in DP, 13 in PP and 24 in NP. The calculated predicted mortality rates were 11.13%, 59.04%, and 90.09%. The actual mortality rates were 12.64%, 61.547%, and 91.67%, respectively. Conclusion : Although it needs to make some improvements, the present study showed that TRISS performed well in predicting survival of traumatic brain injured patients. Also, TRISS is relatively exact and acceptable compared with actual data, as a simple and time-saving method.

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.538-545
• /
• 1999

Objective : To compare the predictive power of International Classification of Diseases 10th Edition(ICD-10) based International Classification of Diseases based Injury Severity Score(ICISS) with Trauma and Injury Severity Score(TRISS) and International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition Clinical Modification(ICD-9CM) based ICISS in the injury severity measure. Methods : ICD-10 version of Survival Risk Ratios(SRRs) was derived from 47,750 trauma patients from 35 Emergency Centers for 1 year. The predictive power of TRISS, the ICD-9CM based ICISS and ICD-10 based ICISS were compared in a group of 367 severely injured patients admitted to two university hospitals. The predictive power was compared by using the measures of discrimination(disparity, sensitivity, specificity, misclassification rates, and ROC curve analysis) and calibration(Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistics), all calculated by logistic regression procedure. Results : ICD-10 based ICISS showed a lower performance than TRISS and ICD-9CM based ICISS. When age and Revised Trauma Score(RTS) were incorporated into the survival probability model, however, ICD-10 based ICISS full model showed a similar predictive power compared with TRISS and ICD-9CM based ICISS full model. ICD-10 based ICISS had some disadvantages in predicting outcomes among patients with intracranial injuries. However, such weakness was largely compensated by incorporating age and RTS in the model. Conclusions : The ICISS methodology can be extended to ICD-10 horizon as a standard injury severity measure in the place of TRISS, especially when age and RTS were incorporated in the model. In patients with intracranial injuries, the predictive power of ICD-10 based ICISS was relatively low because of differences in the classifying system between ICD-10 and ICD-9CM.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.98-104
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of the trauma care system of our hospital, in which emergency physicians care for major trauma patients in the emergency intensive care unit (ICU) in consultation with intervention radiologists and surgeons. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study conducted in an emergency ICU of a tertiary referral hospital. We enrolled consecutive patients who had been admitted to our emergency ICU with major trauma from March 2007 to September 2010. We collected data with respect to demographic findings, mechanisms of injury, the trauma and injury severity score (TRISS), emergency surgery, angiographic intervention, and 6-month mortality. Then, we compared the observed and predicted survivals of the patients. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test and calibration plots by using 10 groups, one for each decile, of predicted mortality were used to evaluate the fitness of TRISS. P-values of greater than 0.05 represent a fair calibration. Results: Among 116 patients, 12 (10.34%) were dead within 6 months after admission to the ICU, and 29 (25.00%) and 38 (32.80%) patients received emergency surgery and angiographic intervention, respectively. The mean injury severity score and revised trauma score were $36.97{\pm}17.73$ and $7.84{\pm}6.75$, respectively. The observed survival and the predicted survival of the TRISS were 89.66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84.03~95.28%) and 69.85% (95% CI: 63.80~75.91%), respectively. The calibration plots showed that the observed survival of our patients was consistently higher than the predicted survival of the TRISS ($p$ <0.001). Conclusion: The observed survival for the trauma care system of our hospital, in which emergency physicians care for major trauma patients in the emergency ICU in consultation with intervention radiologists and surgeons, was higher than the predicted survival of the TRISS.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.75-82
• /
• 2010

Purpose: In Korea, trauma is the $3^{rd}$ most common cause of death. The trauma treatment system is divided into pre-hospital and hospital stages. Deaths occurring in the pre-hospital stage are 50% of the total death, and 20% of those are deaths that are preventable. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to calculate the preventable death rates caused by trauma in our current pre-hospital system, to analyze the appropriateness of the treatment of traumatized patients and to draw a conclusions about the problems we have. Methods: The study was done on traumatized patients who expired at the emergency department from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009, at the Korea University Medical Centers in Anam, Guro and Ansan. The data on the patients were reviewed retrospectively based on characteristics, conditions on admission and trauma severity. The patient's RTS (revised trauma score) and ISS (injury severity score) was calculated. Preventable death rate was calculated by TRISS (the trauma score-injury severity score). Results: A total of 168 patients were enrolled. All patients were intubated and underwent CPR. Of the total, 72% patients were male, and traffic accidents were the most common form of trauma (52.4%), falls being second (28.6%). Head injury, solitary or multiple, was the most common cause of death (55.4%). Thirty-eight (38, 22.6%) deaths were preventable. The 22.6% preventable death rate consisted of 15.5% potentially preventable and 7.1% definitely preventable deaths. Based on a logistic regression analysis, the relationship between the time intervals until transfusion and imaging and death was statistically significant in the hospital stage. In the pre-hospital stage, transit time from the site of the injury to the hospital showed a significant relationship with the mortality rate. Conclusion: One hundred sixty-eight (168) patients died of trauma at the 3 hospitals of Korea University Medical Center. The TRISS method was used to calculate the preventable death rate, with a result of 22.6%. The only factor that was significant related to the preventable death rate in the pre-hospital stage was the time from injury to hospital arrival, and the time intervals until transfusion and imaging were the two factors that showed significance in the hospital stage. Shortening the time of treatment in the field and transferring the patient to the hospital as quickly as possible is the most important life-saving step in the pre-hospital stage. In the hospital stage, the primary survey, resuscitation and diagnosis should proceed simultaneously.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.126-130
• /
• 2017

Purpose: Preventable Trauma Death Rate (PTDR) using Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) has been most widely used as a quality indicator in South Korea. However, this method has a small number of deaths corresponding to the denominator. Therefore, it is difficult to check the change of quality improvement for annual mortality, and there is a disadvantage that variation is severe. Therefore, we attempted to improve the quality of the mortality evaluation by reducing the variation by applying the PARK Index (preventable major trauma death rate, PMTDR) which can increase the number of denominator significantly. And the Save score (S-score) was also examined as another quality indicator. Methods: In the PARK Index, the denominator is number of all patients who have survival probability (Ps) larger than 0.25. Numerator is the number of deaths among these. The PARK Index includes only patients with ISS >15. The S-score is calculated in the same way as the W-score, but the S-score includes only patients with ISS >15, which is a difference from the W-score. Results: PARK Index decreased annually and was 12.9 (37/287) in 2014, 9.6 (33/343) in 2015, and 7.3 (52/709) in 2016. S-score increased annually and was -0.29 in 2014, 4.21 in 2015, and 8.75 in 2016. Conclusions: PARK Index and S-score improved annually. This shows that both quality indicators are improving year by year. PARK Index (PMTDR) has 9.5-fold increase in denominator overall compared to PTDR by TRISS. The S-score used only ISS >15 patients as a denominator. Therefore, there is an advantage that the numerical value change is larger than the W-score. In addition, S-score is not affected by the ratio of major trauma patients to minor trauma patients.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.131-139
• /
• 2017

Purpose: Trauma systems have been shown to decrease injury-related mortality. The present study aimed to compare the mortality rates of patients with major trauma (injury severity score >15) treated before and after the establishment of a level I trauma center. Methods: During this 20-month study, participants were divided into pre-trauma center and trauma center groups, and trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) method was used to compare mortality rates during 10-month periods before and after the establishment of the trauma center (October 2013 to July 2014 vs. October 2014 to July 2015). Results: Of the 541 total participants, 278 (51.5%) visited after the establishment of the trauma center. The Z and W statistics indicated better outcomes in the trauma center group than in the pre-trauma center group (Z statistic, 2.635 vs. -0.700; W statistic, 4.640). The trauma center group also exhibited meaningful reductions in the time interval from the emergency department (ED) visit to emergency surgery (118.0 minutes vs. 142.5 minutes, p=0.020) and the interval from the ED visit to intensive care unit admission (202.0 minutes vs. 259.0 minutes, p=0.035) relative to the pre-trauma center group. Conclusions: The TRISS and multivariate analysis revealed significant improvements in survival rates in the trauma center group, compared to the pre-trauma center group.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.99-103
• /
• 2013

Purpose: This hospital has operated a trauma system of the inclusive trauma system under the sponsorship of this hospital and with financial support from the government from 2011, and it has been designated as a specialized trauma center (candidate) since November 2008. Therefore, this emergency medical center evaluated the influence of the inclusive trauma system on the course of healing and on the results for trauma patients within the region. Methods: The medical records of all patients who were registered as trauma patients from among those who visited the emergency medical center of this hospital from April 2009 to May 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. The monthly and the annual averages of important indices, such as the time in the emergency room and preventable mortalities, were calculated, and patterns of change were sought. The preventable mortality rate was calculated by using the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) for each patient. Results: The total number of patients registered from April 2009 to May 2012 was 601, and male patients accounted for a larger proportion(432 males(71.88%) vs. 169 females(28.12%)). Their average age was 46.2 years, the average Revised Trauma Score (RTS) was 5.74 points, and the average Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 26.99 points. The preventable mortality rate during the entire period, which was calculated using the TRISS, appeared lower than the preventable mortality rates reported in past studies in the Republic of Korea. Conclusion: These results for the operation of a new trauma system are limited in that they are only for a local private university hospital. However, results show greater changes and developments in and out of the hospital due to multilateral endeavors by the trauma team and the hospital. These endeavors include increased communications among the departments and development of a complementary patient registration system.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2001

The purpose of the present study was to assess the agreement of survival probability estimated by International Classification of Diseases l0th Edition(ICD-10) based International Classification of Diseases based Injury Severity Score(ICISS) with professional panel's judgment on preventable death. ICISS has a promise as an alternative to Trauma and Injury Severity Score(TRISS) which have served as a standard measure of trauma severity, but requires more validation studies. Furthermore as original version of ICISS was based ICD-9CM, it is necessary to test its performance employing ICD-10 which has been used in Korea and is expected to replace ICD-9 in many countries sooner or later. Methods : For 1997 and 1998 131 trauma deaths and 1,785 blunt trauma inpatients from 6 emergency medical centers were randomly sampled and reviewed. Trauma deaths were reviewed by professional panels with hospital records and survival probability of trauma inpatients was assessed using ICD-10 based ICISS. For trauma mortality degree of agreement between ICISS survival probability with judgment of professional panel on preventable death was assessed and correlation between W-score and preventable death rate by each emergency medical center was assessed. Results : Overall agreement rate of ICISS survival probability with preventable death judged by professional panel was 66.4%(kappa statistic 0.36). Spearman's correlation coefficient between W-score and preventable death rate by each emergency medical center was -0.77(p=0.07) and Pearson's correlation coefficient between them was -0.90(p=0.01). Conclusions : The agreement rate of ICD-10 based ICISS survival probability with of professional panel's judgment on preventable death was similar to TRISS. The W-scores of emergency medical centers derived from ICD-10 based ICISS were highly correlated with preventable death rates of them with marginal statistical significance.