외상환자 중증도 평가방법론의 타당도 평가

Similar documents
歯1.PDF

(Microsoft PowerPoint - XHXZDUCWJTHH.ppt [\310\243\310\257 \270\360\265\345])

Performance Evaluation of Emergency Medical Center

012임수진

#Ȳ¿ë¼®

1..


전립선암발생률추정과관련요인분석 : The Korean Cancer Prevention Study-II (KCPS-II)

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA


(Exposure) Exposure (Exposure Assesment) EMF Unknown to mechanism Health Effect (Effect) Unknown to mechanism Behavior pattern (Micro- Environment) Re

590호(01-11)

부속

Rheu-suppl hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

기관고유연구사업결과보고

<C3D6C1BE5F2D FBCF6C1A42E687770>

04-다시_고속철도61~80p

Analysis of objective and error source of ski technical championship Jin Su Seok 1, Seoung ki Kang 1 *, Jae Hyung Lee 1, & Won Il Son 2 1 yong in Univ

Output file

SW¹é¼Ł-³¯°³Æ÷ÇÔÇ¥Áö2013

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

저작자표시 - 비영리 - 변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할

hwp

Lumbar spine

특집_이중의

975_983 특집-한규철, 정원호

대한한의학원전학회지26권4호-교정본(1125).hwp


<31372DB9DABAB4C8A32E687770>

methods.hwp

레이아웃 1

Abstract Background : Most hospitalized children will experience physical pain as well as psychological distress. Painful procedure can increase anxie


04_이근원_21~27.hwp

<626BBBE7B7CAB0FCB8AEC1F6C4A7BCAD30332E687770>

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

12이문규

ÀÌÁÖÈñ.hwp

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

자기공명영상장치(MRI) 자장세기에 따른 MRI 품질관리 영상검사의 개별항목점수 실태조사 A B Fig. 1. High-contrast spatial resolution in phantom test. A. Slice 1 with three sets of hole arr

04김호걸(39~50)ok

example code are examined in this stage The low pressure pressurizer reactor trip module of the Plant Protection System was programmed as subject for

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

서론

Development of culture technic for practical cultivation under structure in Gastrodia elate Blume

Æ÷Àå½Ã¼³94š

.,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,, (, 2011)..,,, (, 2009)., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994;, 1995), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, (, 201

A Problem for Government STAGE 6: Policy Termination STAGE 1: Agenda Setting STAGE 5: Policy Change STAGE 2: Policy Formulation STAGE 4: Policy Evalua

서론 1.1 연구배경및목적 Table 1. Cancer mortality Stomach cancer no. of deaths 11,701 11,190 10,935 10,716 10,563 10,312 m

°Ç°�°úÁúº´6-2È£

WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성 ( 황수경 ) ꌙ 127 노동정책연구 제 4 권제 2 호 pp.127~148 c 한국노동연구원 WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성황수경 *, (disabi

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구

278 경찰학연구제 12 권제 3 호 ( 통권제 31 호 )

<30382E20B1C7BCF8C0E720C6EDC1FD5FC3D6C1BEBABB2E687770>

PowerPoint 프레젠테이션

<C7D1B1B9B1A4B0EDC8ABBAB8C7D0BAB85F31302D31C8A35F32C2F75F E687770>

조사연구 권 호 연구논문 한국노동패널조사자료의분석을위한패널가중치산출및사용방안사례연구 A Case Study on Construction and Use of Longitudinal Weights for Korea Labor Income Panel Survey 2)3) a


<32382DC3BBB0A2C0E5BED6C0DA2E687770>

182 동북아역사논총 42호 금융정책이 조선에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지를 살펴보고자 한다. 일제 대외금융 정책의 기본원칙은 각 식민지와 점령지마다 별도의 발권은행을 수립하여 일본 은행권이 아닌 각 지역 통화를 발행케 한 점에 있다. 이들 통화는 일본은행권 과 等 價 로 연

04조남훈


황지웅

PJTROHMPCJPS.hwp

<303120C0CCBBF3B8F12DC0CCB1D4BFEB2E687770>

°í¼®ÁÖ Ãâ·Â

À±½Â¿í Ãâ·Â

사용시 기본적인 주의사항 경고 : 전기 기구를 사용할 때는 다음의 기본적인 주의 사항을 반드시 유의하여야 합니다..제품을 사용하기 전에 반드시 사용법을 정독하십시오. 2.물과 가까운 곳, 욕실이나 부엌 그리고 수영장 같은 곳에서 제품을 사용하지 마십시오. 3.이 제품은

02김헌수(51-72.hwp


ISO17025.PDF

(Microsoft PowerPoint - S13-3_\261\350\273\363\307\366 [\310\243\310\257 \270\360\265\345])

지능정보연구제 16 권제 1 호 2010 년 3 월 (pp.71~92),.,.,., Support Vector Machines,,., KOSPI200.,. * 지능정보연구제 16 권제 1 호 2010 년 3 월

노영남

<B0E6C8F1B4EBB3BBB0FA20C0D3BBF3B0ADC1C E687770>

15_3oracle


<B3EDB9AEC1FD5F3235C1FD2E687770>

<303720C7CFC1A4BCF86F6B2E687770>



YI Ggodme : The Lives and Diseases of Females during the Latter Half of the Joseon Dynasty as Reconstructed with Cases in Yeoksi Manpil (Stray Notes w

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

에너지경제연구 제13권 제1호

ePapyrus PDF Document

step 1-1

F1-1(수정).ppt

272 石 堂 論 叢 49집 기꾼이 많이 확인된 결과라 할 수 있다. 그리고 이야기의 유형이 가족 담, 도깨비담, 동물담, 지명유래담 등으로 한정되어 있음도 확인하였 다. 전국적인 광포성을 보이는 이인담이나 저승담, 지혜담 등이 많이 조사되지 않은 점도 특징이다. 아울

Pharmacotherapeutics Application of New Pathogenesis on the Drug Treatment of Diabetes Young Seol Kim, M.D. Department of Endocrinology Kyung Hee Univ

<352EC7E3C5C2BFB55FB1B3C5EBB5A5C0CCC5CD5FC0DABFACB0FAC7D0B4EBC7D02E687770>


약수터2호최종2-웹용

장양수

Manufacturing6

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: (LiD) - - * Way to


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * Suggestions of Ways

歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

Transcription:

Trauma Scoring System and Validation of ICISS (ICD based Injury Severity Score) 2004 10 26

Outline Utility of trauma scoring system Trauma scoring systems Physiologic measure Anatomic measure Combination of physiologic & anatomic score ICISS validation studies Potential future works

Utility of Trauma Scoring System Measurement and documentation of injury severity Pre-requisite for the development, evaluation, and improvement of trauma care system and injury control Triage Augment clinical judgment of pre-hospital personnel with respect to on-scene treatment and transport Evaluation of outcome Compare the performance of a trauma care facility against a standard Assess the quality of care by a trauma care facility Preliminary outcome-based evaluation (PRE) chart: Identify patients with unexpected outcome Comparison of effectiveness of treatment modalities Epidemiologic data collection: Trauma registry

Risk Adjustment & Trauma Score Patient Factors Treatment Effectiveness + + = Random Event Patient Outcome,,,,,, /,

PRE Chart (Preliminary Outcome Based Evaluation)

Trauma Scoring Systems Physiologic score GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) RTS (Revised Trauma Score) CRAMS (Circulation, Respiration, Abdominal/thoracic, Motor, Speech scale) APACHE (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation) Anatomic score AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) ISS (Injury Severity Score) ICISS (ICD based Injury Severity Score) Combination of physiologic & anatomic score TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score) ASCOT (A Severity Characterization of Trauma) ICISS full model: ICISS+RTS

Glasgow Coma Scale Eye Opening Response Spontaneous--open with blinking at baseline 4 To verbal stimuli, command, speech 3 To pain only (not applied to face) 2 No response 1 Verbal Response Oriented 5 Confused conversation, but able to answer questions 4 Inappropriate words 3 Incomprehensible speech 2 No response 1 Motor Response Obeys commands for movement 6 Purposeful movement to painful stimulus 5 Withdraws in response to pain 4 Flexion in response to pain (decorticate posturing) 3 Extension response in response to pain 2 (decerebrate posturing) No response 1

Glasgow Coma Scale Score range: 3~15 Head Injury Classification: Severe Head Injury----GCS score of 8 or less Moderate Head Injury----GCS score of 9 to 12 Mild Head Injury----GCS score of 13 to 15 (Adapted from: Advanced Trauma Life Support: Course for Physicians, American College of Surgeons, 1993) Advantages Correlated w/ mortality Widely used for pre-hospital triage and determining level of consciousness Incorporated into the RTS

Revised Trauma Score (RTS) RTS =0.9368(GCS) + 0.7326(SBP) + 0.2908(RR) GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale SBP: systolic blood pressure RR: respiration rate

Revised Trauma Score (RTS) Coded Value GCS SBP RR 4 3 2 1 0 13-15 9-12 6-8 4-5 3 >89 76-89 50-75 1-49 0 10-29 >29 6-9 1-5 0 * GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale, SBP: Systolic Blood Pressure, RR: Respiration Rate

RTS (Revised Trauma Score) Score range: 0~7.84 Development Evolved from Triage Index and Trauma Score Subnormal value for any RTS variable: transport to trauma center Advantages Simple Widely used for prehospital triage More accurate prediction of outcome than Trauma Score Disadvantage Too many missing data for GCS in Korea

> RTS GCS 13, 70, 13, RTS? RTS = 0.9368(GCS) + 0.7326x( ) + 0.2908x( ) 6.3756 = (0.9368 x 4) + (0.7326 x 2) + (0.2908 x 4)

CRAMS (Circulation, Respiration, Abdominal/thoracic, Motor, Speech scale) Development Attempt to simplify the original trauma score for field triage Score for each 5 category 0 (severe physiologic/neurologic deficit, abdominal/thoracic injury) 2 (no deficit OR injury) Respiratory: Normal(2), Labored/Shallow(1), Absent(0) Major trauma: 8 or less Minor trauma: 9 or above

APACHE (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation) Development Classification system for ICU Variables used Values at ICU admission OR Worst values during 1 st 24 hours after ICU admission Score range: 0~299 Age Acute physiology: Temperature, Mean arterial pressure, Heart rate, Respiration rate, GCS, Oxygenation, Arterial ph, Serum sodium/ potassium/ creatinine, Hct, WBC, Chronic health : AIDS, Hepatic failure, Lymphoma, Metastatic cancer, Leukemia, Multiple myeloma, Immunosuppression, Chirrosis

APACHE (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation) APACHE II 12 variables Standardized coefficients for each patient group Treatment Outcome Admission eligibility Trauma patient group Post-operative/Non-operative Multiple trauma/head injury APACHE III Better prediction Commercial product

AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) Development Developed in 1969 for assessing severity of MVA List of several hundreds of injuries 6 Body region Head/Neck, Face, Thorax, Abdomen/Pelvic, Extremities, External 0(minor)~6(fatal) Revision: AIS-71 (original), AIS-85, AIS-90 Building block of ISS, standard injury severity score

AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) A.I.S SCOR ES HEAD & NECK 1 MINOR Headache/dizz iness 2ndary to head trauma Cervical spine strain with no fracture or dislocation 2 MODERATE Amnesia from accident Lethargic/ stuporous obtunded; can be aroused by verbal stimuli Unconsciousne ss 1 hr Simple vault fracture Thyroid contusion Branchial plexus injury Dislocation or fracture 3 SEVERE NOT LIFE THREATENING Unconsciousness 1-6 hrs Unconsciousness < 1 hr with neurological deficit Fracture base of skull Comminuted compound or Depressed vault fracture Cerebral contusion/ Subarachnoid hemorrhage Intimal tear/thrombosis carotid A. Contusion larynx, 4 SEVERE LIFE THREATENING Unconsciousne ss 1-6 hrs with neurological deficit Unconsciousne ss 6-24 hrs Appropriate response only to painful stimuli Fractured skull with depression > 2cm, lac dura or tissue loss Intracranial hematoma 5 CRITICAL SURVIVAL UNCERTAIN Unconsciousne ss with inappropriate movement Unconscious > 24 hrs Brain stem injury Intracranial hematoma > 100 cc Complete cervical cord lesion C4 or below

AIS to ICD Conversion AIS ICD-9CM Disadvantage 1:M mapping No appropriate AIS code for some ICD codes Not always correct assignment Coding quality: creeping Limited # of ICD codes in a discharge summary

ISS (Injury Severity Score) ISS = AIS(1) 2 +AIS(2) 2 +AIS(3) 2 Need a summary score based on AIS for multiple injuries Value from 1 to 75 Patients w/ AIS 6 injury assign ISS 75

Sample ISS Score Region Injury Description AIS Square Top Three Head & Neck Cerebral Contusion 3 9 Face No Injury 0 Chest Flail Chest 4 16 Abdomen Minor Contusion of Liver Complex Rupture Spleen 2 5 25 Extremity Fractured femur 3 External No Injury 0 Injury Severity Score: 50

ISS (Injury Severity Score): Disadvantages Discounting the importance of body region Mortality rates for subsets of ISS=16 cohort Head/neck 17.2% Face 0.0% Thorax 6.1% Abdomen 10.5% Limits in considering severity of multiple injuries Only consider 3 most severe injuries

MTOS (Major Trauma Outcome Study) Objective Establish national normative outcome for trauma Provide trauma care institutions with objective data for evaluation of their quality assurance and outcome results Methods Begun 1982 More than 170k seriously injured patients included About 160 North American hospitals submitted data to the MTOS Combination of physiologic and anatomic measure for evaluation of injury severity = TRISS method

TRISS (Trauma & Injury Severity Score) TRISS b=b0+b1(rts)+b2(iss)+b3(age) Ps=1/(1+e -b ) MTOS regression coefficients b0 b1 b2 b3 Blunt Penetrating -1.2470-0.6029 0.9544 1.1430-0.0768-0.1516-1.9052-2.6676

TRISS (Trauma & Injury Severity Score) Disadvantage Requirement for independent data collection system Inability to consider more than 3 injuries in deriving survival probability

: TRISS RTS 6, ISS 18, 35, TRISS? 1 TRISS. 2 b = b0 + b1 x (RTS) + b2 x (ISS) + b3 x ( ) = -1.2470 + (0.9544x6) + (-0.0768x18) + (-1.9052x0) 3.097 = -1.2470 + 5.7264-1.3824 + 0 3 : (Ps) = 1/(1+e-b) e = 2.718 e-3.097 = 0.0452 (Ps) = 1/(1+e-b) = 1/(1+0.0452) = 0.9568

ICISS (ICD based Injury Severity Score) SRR (Survivor Risk Ratio) SRR ICDj = Number of patients that survived with ICD j Number of patients with ICD j ICISS survival probability ICISS = SRR ICD(1) x SRR ICD(2)... x SRR ICD (10) Liver Laceration (0.9), EDH (0.8) ICISS=0.9*0.8=0.72 ICISS full model b=b0+b1(rts)+b2(iciss)+b3(age) Advantage Use of multiple injuries in deriving survival probability Much less effort required for data collection than ISS and TRISS

SRR Table: Example ICD code ICD code description Total patients Live Dead SRR S00 Superficial injury of head 11 11-1.000 S000 Superficial injury of scalp 1,640 1,588 52 0.968 S001 Contusion of eyelid and periocular area 425 422 3 0.993 S002 Other superficial injuries of eyelid and periocular area 167 167-1.000 S003 Superficial injury of nose 100 100-1.000 S004 Superficial injury of ear 108 108-1.000 S005 Superficial injury of lip and oral cavity 171 169 2 0.988

ICISS (ICD based Injury Severity Score) ICD (Trauma registry) ISS ISS, TRISS

Risk-adjusted Outcome Risk(severity) + Quality = Outcome Z-score Z = (A-E)/S S = Pi*(1-Pi) +1.96 < or > -1.96 W-score W=(A-E) / (N/100)

Study(1): Objective To evaluate the predictive validity of ICD-10 based ICISS as a predictor of mortality for patients with blunt injuries By comparing with ISS, TRISS, and ICD- 9CM based ICISS

Study(1): Framework North North Carolina Trauma Database (89,827 patients) TRISS TRISS Database of of Two Two EMCs EMCs (367 (367 patients) Korean Korean EMC EMC Trauma Database (47,750 patients) ICD-9CM SRR SRR Survey Survey of of ICD-9CM & ICD-10 ICD-10 codes codes ICD-10 ICD-10 SRR SRR Predictive Validity Validity of of ICD-9CM based based ICISS ICISS Predictive Validity Validity of of ICD-10 ICD-10 based based ICISS ICISS Predictive Validity Validity of of ISS ISS and and TRISS TRISS

Study(1): Measure of Performance Measures of Discrimination Disparity, Sensitivity(%), Specificity(%) Misclassification rate(%) Area under the ROC (receiver operating characteristic curve) Goodness-of-fit statistics Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic

ICISS vs. ISS: All Blunt Injury ISS ICD-9CM based ICISS ICD-10 based ICISS Disparity 0.245 0.378 0.194 Sensitivity(%) 43.6 56.4 38.5 Specificity(%) 97.2 97.9 94.1 Misclassification rate(%) 14.2 10.9 17.7 ROC analysis 1) 0.892 0.909 0.843 H-L Statistic 2) 9.381 (p=0.226) 12.891 (p=0.116) 1) ROC analysis : Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis 2) H-L Statistic: Hosmer- Lemeshow Statistic 5.147 (p=0.742)

ICISS Full Model vs. TRISS: All Blunt Injury TRISS ICD-9CM based ICISS Full Model ICD-10 based ICISS Full Model Disparity 0.644 0.737 0.627 Sensitivity(%) 75.6 82.1 73.1 Specificity(%) 96.9 98.3 96.2 Misclassification rate(%) 7.6 5.2 8.7 ROC analysis 1) 0.958 0.976 0.956 H-L Statistic 2) 3.406 (p=0.906) 7.738 (p=0.460) 1) ROC analysis : Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis 2) H-L Statistic: Hosmer- Lemeshow Statistic 7.294 (p=0.505)

ICISS Full Model vs. TRISS: Intracranial Injury TRISS ICD-9CM based ICISS Full Model ICD-10 based ICISS Full Model Disparity 0.684 0.769 0.629 Sensitivity(%) 79.7 84.7 76.3 Specificity(%) 94.4 96.0 93.6 Misclassification rate(%) 10.3 7.6 12.0 ROC analysis 1) 0.829 0.882 0.791 H-L Statistic 2) 4.948 (p=0.763) 9.053 (p=0.338) 1) ROC analysis : Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis 2) H-L Statistic: Hosmer- Lemeshow Statistic 3.417 (p=0.906)

ICISS Full Model vs. ISS: Non-intracranial Injury TRISS ICD-9CM based ICISS Full Model ICD-10 based ICISS Full Model Disparity 0.511 0.626 0.596 Sensitivity(%) 57.9 57.9 63.2 Specificity(%) 98.2 98.8 98.2 Misclassification rate(%) 6.0 5.5 5.5 ROC analysis 1) 0.938 0.979 0.97 H-L Statistic 2) 2.929 (p=0.939) 0.968 (p=0.998) 1) ROC analysis : Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis 2) H-L Statistic: Hosmer- Lemeshow Statistic 3.618 (p=0.890)

Through comparing the agreement between judgments derived from ICISS survival probability and those derived from a professional panel method Study(2): Objectives To evaluate the utility of ICISS To detect preventable deaths To compare the performance of trauma care facilities

Study(2): Framework 2 Tertiary 6 EMCs // 4 Non-tertiary Trauma Deaths (131) Trauma Inpatients (1,087) ICISS Survival Probability Professional Panel Review on on Preventability W-scores of of Each EMC using ICISS Agreement Rates Correlation Coefficient

Study(2): Data Collection Two professional panels Each panel: emergency physician(1), general surgeon(1), neurosurgeon(1) Review process Independent review by each panel member using structured review form Decision rule: Unanimous agreement rule Time for review per case: about 1 hour Preventability: Preventable (P): Ps 0.75 Potentially preventable (PP): Ps 0.25~0.75 Non-preventable (NP): Ps < 0.25 Data collection for ICISS RTS : GCS, SBP, RR Maximum of 10 ICD-10 codes

Study(2): Analysis Agreement of judgment on preventable deaths Overall agreement rates Kappa statistics Correlation between the preventable death rate and the W-score in each EMC W-statistic = (A-E)/(n/100) Represents excess survival or excess mortality per 100 patients after adjusting severity of trauma patients A: Actual Survivors E: Expected Survivors N : Number of Observations Spearman correlation coefficient

Agreement between the Preventability of the Panel and ICISS Survival Probability Prevent -ability ICISS 0.75 0.25-0.75 0.25< Total P 14 ( 35.0) [ 10.7] 3 ( 7.0) [ 2.3] 0 ( 0.0) [ 0.0] 17 ( 13.0) P/PP PP 16 ( 40.0) [ 12.2] 13 ( 30.2) [ 9.9] 7 ( 14.6) [ 5.3] 36 ( 27.5) Subtotal 30 ( 75.0) [ 22.9] 16 ( 37.2) [ 12.2] 7 ( 14.6) [ 5.3] 53 ( 40.5) NP 10 ( 25.0) [ 7.6] 27 ( 62.8) [ 20.6] 41 ( 85.4) [ 31.3] * P: Preventable, PP; Potentially preventable, NP; Nonpreventable 78 ( 59.5) Total 40 (100.0) [ 30.5] 43 (100.0) [ 32.8] 48 (100.0) [ 36.6] 131(100.0) [ 100.0]

Agreement between the Preventability of the Panel and ICISS Survival Probability 2-way classification: P/PP, NP Overall agreement: 66.4% Kappa : 0.36 McDermott(1996) : 65.6% (0.35) 3-way classification: P, PP, NP Overall agreement: 51.9% Kappa : 0.26

ICISS - - : 55.4% (46/83) Cayten (1991) : 21.5% Karmy-Jones (1992) :16.1% : 85.4% (41/48)

Correlation between W-score W and Preventable Death Rate by Emergency Medical Center 60.0 (-8.98, 47.8) (0.56, 55.0) (-0.11, 50.0) Preventability(%) 40.0 20.0 (1.54, 37.0) (2.66, 34.6) (4.44, 21.1) 0.0 Spearman=0.77(p=0.07) -9.00-6.00-3.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 W-score *Numbers in parentheses refer to W-score and preventable death rate of each emergency medical center.

Conclusion The ICISS methodology can be extended to ICD-10 horizon as a standard injury severity measure in the place of TRISS for blunt injury. The ICISS is useful in detecting preventable deaths and in comparing the performance of trauma care

Potential Future Work Development of standardized coefficients of a ICISS prediction model based on a large scale study Possible to evaluate quality of care of emergency medical centers based on national standards Similar to MTOS (major trauma outcome study) of North America Development of ICISS prediction models considering various mechanisms of injury which could affect validity of trauma scoring system Blunt injury: Motor vehicle accident, low fall, other blunt injury Penetrating injury: gunshot wound, stab wound

Questions?