Prehospital Pediatric Assessment Triangle-Real World Data: Emergency Medical Services Use of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle in the Prehospital Environment.
Prehospital emergency care · 2025-11-12 · Observational study
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians report lack of training and experience with children, leading to discomfort and uncertainty regarding assessment and treatment. The Pediatric Assessment Triangle (PAT) was designed to provide a rapid and standardized approach. Despite widespread adoption, literature examining EMS implementation of PAT remains limited. We examined EMS use of PAT and assessment of clinical stability and the association between EMS use of PAT and prehospital interventions, EMS transport decisions (advanced life support [ALS] vs basic life support [BLS]), emergency department (ED) interventions, and ED disposition. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients 0 to <15 years transported to a quaternary care pediatric ED via EMS between October 2022 and November 2023. Data were abstracted from EMS and ED electronic health records (EHRs) including PAT evaluation, demographics, EMS and ED interventions, and ED disposition. Data were analyzed using counts and percentages, logistic regression, chi-square, and McNemar's test. RESULTS: A total of 2929 patients were included. Most patients, 65.9%, had a PAT score of 0; for those with non-zero PATs, abnormalities in the appearance domain were most prevalent, 50.7%. A PAT score of 1 or higher was associated with transport via ALS (OR 67.9; 95% CI 32.0, 144.1) compared to a PAT of 0. Most patients, 62.2%, received an EMS intervention; the most common was diagnostics (blood glucose or electrocardiogram [EKG]). The EMS administered medications to 22% of patients. PAT scores of ≥2 were associated with double the odds of admission to the floor (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.4, 3.0) and quadruple the odds of admission to ICU level of care/direct to surgery/expired (OR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9, 8.3); PATs abnormal for work of breathing only were associated with increased odds of admission to the floor (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.8, 3.6). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that EMS PAT assessment in the field appropriately reflects patient stability and may be associated with EMS intervention en-route. The EMS PAT scores demonstrate promise as an adjunct to ED assessment, alerting clinicians to increased likelihood of admission. The PAT has potential to serve as a practical mechanism for EMS feedback and quality improvement studies.