Defining obstacles to emergency transfer of trauma patients: An evaluation of retriage processes from nontrauma and lower-level Illinois trauma centers

dc.contributor.authorSlocum, John D.
dc.contributor.authorHoll, Jane L.
dc.contributor.authorLove, Remi
dc.contributor.authorShi, Meilynn
dc.contributor.authorMackersie, Robert
dc.contributor.authorAlam, Hasan
dc.contributor.authorLoftus, Timothy M.
dc.contributor.authorAndersen, Rebecca
dc.contributor.authorBilimoria, Karl Y.
dc.contributor.authorStey, Anne M.
dc.contributor.departmentSurgery, School of Medicine
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-09T14:07:34Z
dc.date.available2025-04-09T14:07:34Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractBackground: Retriage is the emergency transfer of severely injured patients from nontrauma and lower-level trauma centers to higher-level trauma centers. We identified the barriers to retriage at sending centers in a single health system. Methods: We conducted a failure modes effects and criticality analysis at 4 nontrauma centers and 5 lower-level trauma centers in a single health system. Clinicians from each center described the steps in the trauma assessment and retriage process to create a process map. We used standardized scoring to characterize each failure based on frequency, impact on retriage, and prevention safeguards. We ranked each failure using the scores to calculate a risk priority number. Results: We identified 26 steps and 93 failures. The highest-risk failure was refusal by higher-level trauma centers (receiving hospitals) to accept a patient. The most critical failures in the retriage process based on total risk, frequency, and safeguard scores were (1) refusal from a receiving higher-level trauma center to accept a patient (risk priority number = 191), (2) delay in a sending center's consultant examination of a patient in the emergency department (risk priority number = 177), and (3) delay in receiving hospital's consultant calling back (risk priority number = 177). Conclusion: We identified (1) addressing obstacles to determining clinical indications for retriage and (2) identifying receiving level I trauma centers who would accept the patient as opportunities to increase timely retriage. Establishing clear clinical indications for retriage that sending and receiving hospitals agree on represents an opportunity for intervention that could improve the retriage of injured patients.
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscript
dc.identifier.citationSlocum JD, Holl JL, Love R, et al. Defining obstacles to emergency transfer of trauma patients: An evaluation of retriage processes from nontrauma and lower-level Illinois trauma centers. Surgery. 2022;172(6):1860-1865. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2022.08.027
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/46934
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.surg.2022.08.027
dc.relation.journalSurgery
dc.rightsPublisher Policy
dc.sourcePMC
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectIllinois
dc.subjectTrauma centers
dc.titleDefining obstacles to emergency transfer of trauma patients: An evaluation of retriage processes from nontrauma and lower-level Illinois trauma centers
dc.typeArticle
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Slocum2022Defining-AAM.pdf
Size:
233.35 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.04 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: