In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1--44 years, and the approximately 800,000 emergency medical services (EMS) providers have a substantial impact on the care of injured persons and on public health. At an injury scene, EMS providers determine the severity of injury, initiate medical management, and identify the most appropriate facility to which to transport the patient through a process called "field triage." Although basic emergency services generally are consistent across hospital emergency departments (EDs), certain hospitals have additional expertise, resources, and equipment for treating severely injured patients. Such facilities, called "trauma centers," are classified from Level I (centers providing the highest level of trauma care) to Level IV (centers providing initial trauma care and transfer to a higher level of trauma care if necessary) depending on the scope of resources and services available. The risk for death of a severely injured person is 25% lower if the patient receives care at a Level I trauma center. However, not all patients require the services of a Level I trauma center; patients who are injured less severely might be served better by being transported to a closer ED capable of managing milder injuries. Transferring all injured patients to Level I trauma centers might overburden the centers, have a negative impact on patient outcomes, and decrease cost effectiveness. In 1986, the American College of Surgeons developed the Field Triage Decision Scheme (Decision Scheme), which serves as the basis for triage protocols for state and local EMS systems across the United States. The Decision Scheme is an algorithm that guides EMS providers through four decision steps (physiologic, anatomic, mechanism of injury, and special considerations) to determine the most appropriate destination facility within the local trauma care system. Since its initial publication in 1986, the Decision Scheme has been revised four times. In 2005, with support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CDC began facilitating revision of the Decision Scheme by hosting a series of meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, which includes injury-care providers, public health professionals, automotive industry representatives, and officials from federal agencies. The Panel reviewed relevant literature, presented its findings, and reached consensus on necessary revisions. The revised Decision Scheme was published in 2006. This report describes the process and rationale used by the Expert Panel to revise the Decision Scheme.

The 2013-2016 epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) that originated in West Africa underscored many of the challenges to conducting clinical research during an ongoing infectious disease epidemic, both in the most affected countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, as well as in the United States and Europe, where a total of 27 patients with EVD received care in biocontainment units. The Special Pathogens Research Network (SPRN) was established in the United States in November 2016 to provide an organizational structure to leverage the expertise of the 10 Regional Ebola and Other Special Pathogen Treatment Centers (RESPTCs); it was intended to develop and support infrastructure to improve readiness to conduct clinical research in the United States. The network enables the rapid activation and coordination of clinical research in the event of an epidemic and facilitates opportunities for multicenter research when the RESPTCs are actively caring for patients requiring a biocontainment unit. Here we provide an overview of opportunities identified in the clinical research infrastructure during the West Africa EVD epidemic and the SPRN activities to meet the ongoing challenges in the context of Ebola virus and other special pathogens.

The National Ebola Training and Education Center (NETEC) was established in 2015 in response to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. The US Department of Health and Human Services office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sought to increase the competency of healthcare and public health workers, as well as the capability of healthcare facilities in the United States, to deliver safe, efficient, and effective care to patients infected with Ebola and other special pathogens nationwide. NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue, Emory University, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Nebraska Medicine were awarded this cooperative agreement, based in part on their experience in safely and successfully evaluating and treating patients with Ebola virus disease in the United States. In 2016, NETEC received a supplemental award to expand on 3 initial primary tasks: (1) develop metrics and conduct peer review assessments; (2) develop and provide educational materials, resources, and tools, including exercise design templates; (3) provide expert training and technical assistance; and, to add a fourth task, create a special pathogens clinical research network.

In 2007, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) Committee on the Future of Emergency Care recommended that a multidisciplinary panel establish a model for developing evidence-based protocols for the treatment of emergency medical systems (EMS) patients. In response, the National EMS Advisory Council (NEMSAC) and the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) convened a panel of multidisciplinary experts to review current strategies for developing evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) and to propose a model for developing such guidelines for the prehospital milieu. This paper describes the eight-step model endorsed by FICEMS, NEMSAC, and a panel of EMS and evidence-based medicine experts. According to the model, prehospital EBG development would begin with the input of evidence from various external sources. Potential EBG topics would be suggested following a preliminary evidentiary review; those topics with sufficient extant foundational evidence would be selected for development. Next, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology would be used to determine a quality-of-evidence rating and a strength of recommendation related to the patient care guidelines. More specific, contextualized patient care protocols would then be generated and disseminated to the EMS community. After educating EMS professionals using targeted teaching materials, the protocols would be implemented in local EMS systems. Finally, effectiveness and uptake would be measured with integrated quality improvement and outcomes monitoring systems. The constituencies and experts involved in the model development process concluded that the use of such transparent, objective, and scientifically rigorous guidelines could significantly increase the quality of EMS care in the future. ((c) 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

BACKGROUND: Ambulance transport of injured patients to the most appropriate medical care facility is an important decision. Trauma centers are designed and staffed to treat severely injured patients and are increasingly burdened by cases involving less-serious injury. Yet, a cost evaluation of the Field Triage national guideline has never been performed. OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential cost savings associated with overtriage for the 1999 and 2006 versions of the Field Triage Guideline. METHODS: Data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) produced estimates of injury-related ambulatory transports and exposure to the Field Triage guideline. Case costs were approximated using a cost distribution curve of all cases found in the NTDB. A two-way sensitivity analysis was also used to determine the impact of data uncertainty on medical costs and the reduction in trauma center visits (12%) after implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline compared with the 1999 Field Triage guideline. RESULTS: At a 40% overtriage rate, the average case cost was $16,434. The cost average of 44.2% reduction in case costs if patients were treated in a non-trauma center compared with a trauma center was found in the literature. Implementation of the 2006 Field Triage guideline produced a $7,264 cost savings per case, or an estimated annual national savings of $568,000,000. CONCLUSION: Application of the 2006 Field Triage guideline helps emergency medical services personnel manage overtriage in trauma centers, which could result in a significant national cost savings.

Mass casualty triage is the process of prioritizing multiple victims when resources are not sufficient to treat everyone immediately. No national guideline for mass casualty triage exists in the United States. The lack of a national guideline has resulted in variability in triage processes, tags, and nomenclature. This variability has the potential to inject confusion and miscommunication into the disaster incident, particularly when multiple jurisdictions are involved. The Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage were developed to be a national guideline for mass casualty triage to ensure interoperability and standardization when responding to a mass casualty incident. The Core Criteria consist of 4 categories: general considerations, global sorting, lifesaving interventions, and individual assessment of triage category. The criteria within each of these categories were developed by a workgroup of experts representing national stakeholder organizations who used the best available science and, when necessary, consensus opinion. This article describes how the Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage were developed.