Major trauma is a leading cause of unexpected death globally, with increasing age-adjusted death rates for unintentional injuries. Field triage schemes (FTSs) assist emergency medical technicians in identifying appropriate medical care facilities for patients. While full FTSs may improve sensitivity, step-by-step field triage is time-consuming. A simplified FTS (sFTS) that uses only physiological and anatomical criteria may offer a more rapid decision-making process. However, evidence for this approach is limited, and its performance in identifying all age groups requiring trauma center resources in Asia remains unclear.

We conducted a multinational retrospective cohort study involving adult trauma patients admitted to emergency departments in the included countries from 2016 to 2020. Prehospital and hospital data were reviewed from the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study database. Patients aged ≥18 years transported by emergency medical services were included. Patients lacking data regarding age, sex, physiological criteria, or injury severity scores were excluded. We examined the performance of sFTS in all age groups and fine-tuned physiological criteria to improve sFTS performance in identifying high-risk trauma patients in different age groups.

The sensitivity and specificity of the physiological and anatomical criteria for identifying major trauma (injury severity score ≥ 16) were 80.6% and 58.8%, respectively. The modified sFTS showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity, with more pronounced changes in the young age group. Adding the shock index further increased sensitivity in both age groups.

sFTS using only physiological and anatomical criteria is suboptimal for Asian adult patients with trauma of all age groups. Adjusting the physiological criteria and adding a shock index as a triage tool can improve the sensitivity of severely injured patients, particularly in young age groups. A swift field triage process can maintain acceptable sensitivity and specificity in severely injured patients.