Evaluation of Secondary Overtriage at a Rural Level 1 Trauma Center

Objective To retrospectively assess the prevalence of secondary overtriage (SO) within a rural regional Appalachian health care system.Methods Trauma registry data was extracted for all trauma activation transfer patients from 2017 to 2022. Transferred patients were then stratified into two groups, non-secondary overtriage (non-SO) or SO. Patients were considered SO if they met three criteria following transfer: an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of less than 15, no required operative intervention, and discharge within 48 hours of arrival. Descriptive statistics were compared for age, length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ISS. Surgical subspecialty consultations were compared between the two groups. Patients in the SO group were further assessed by body region of injury and Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS).Results Among 3,291 trauma activation transfer patients, 43% (1,407) were considered SO transfers. Patients in the SO group were significantly younger, had shorter average hospital and ICU LOS, and lower ISS compared to the non-SO group. Additionally, 25.7% of patients in the SO group had injuries to the head or neck of which 8.96% have an AIS >= 3. 21% of patients had injuries to the face, with 0.14% having an AIS >= 3.Conclusions 43% of transfer patients in this study met our definition of SO. Although no optimal rate of SO has been universally established, limiting SO stands to benefit both patients and trauma systems. This study highlights how institutional analysis of transfer patients may help inform transfer protocols to reduce secondary overtriage and overutilization of scarce resources.