LAUSR

Introduction High-risk mechanisms in trauma usually dictate certain treatment and evaluation in protocolized care. A 10–15 feet (ft) fall is traditionally cited as an example of a high-risk mechanism, triggering trauma team activations and costly work-ups. The height and other details of mechanism are usually reported by lay bystanders or prehospital personnel. This small observational study was designed to evaluate how accurate or inaccurate height estimation may be among typical bystanders. Methods This was a blinded, prospective study conducted on the grounds of a community hospital. Four panels with lines corresponding to varying heights from 1–25 ft were hung within a building structure that did not have stories or other possibly confounding factors by which to judge height. The participants were asked to estimate the height of each line using a multiple-choice survey-style ballot. Participants were adult volunteers composed of various hospital and non-hospital affiliated persons, of varying ages and genders. In total, there were 96 respondents. Results For heights equal to or greater than 15 ft, less than 50% of participants of each job description were able to correctly identify the height. When arranged into a scatter plot, as height increased, the likelihood to underestimate the correct height was evident, having a strong correlation coefficient (R=+0.926) with a statistically significant p value = <0.001. Conclusion The use of vertical height as a predictor of injury severity is part of current practice in trauma triage. This data is often an estimation provided by prehospital personnel or bystanders. Our small study showed bystanders may not estimate heights accurately in the field. The greater the reported height, the less likely it is to be accurate. Additionally, there is a higher likelihood that falls from greater than 15 ft may be underestimated.