Abstract/Text: Objective: To use a previously published criterion standard to compare the accuracy of 4 different mass casualty triage systems (Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport [SALT], Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment [START], Triage Sieve, and CareFlight) when used in an emergency department-based adult population. Methods: We performed a prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of adults aged 18 years or older presenting to a single tertiary care hospital emergency department. A co-investigator with prior emergency medical services (EMS) experience observed each subject's initial triage in the emergency department and recorded all data points necessary to assign a triage category using each of the 4 mass casualty triage systems being studied. Subjects' medical records were reviewed after their discharge from the hospital to assign the "correct" triage category using the criterion standard. The 4 mass casualty triage system assignments were then compared to the "correct" assignment. Descriptive statistics were used to compare accuracy and over- and under-triage rates for each triage system. Results: A total of 125 subjects were included in the study. Of those, 53% were male and 59% were transported by private vehicle. When compared to the criterion standard definitions, SALT was found to have the highest accuracy rate (52%; 95% CI 43-60) compared to START (36%; 95% CI 28-44), CareFlight (36%; 95% CI 28-44), and TriageSieve (37%; 95% CI 28-45). SALT also had the lowest under-triage rate (26%; 95% CI 19-34) compared to START (57%; 95% CI 48-66), CareFlight (58%; 95% CI 49-66), and TriageSieve (58%; 95% CI 49-66). SALT had the highest over-triage rate (22%; 95% CI 14-29) compared to START (7%; 95% CI 3-12), CareFlight (6%; 95% CI 2-11) and TriageSieve (6%; 95% CI 2-11). Conclusion: We found that SALT triage most often correctly triaged adult emergency department patients when compared to a previously published criterion standard. While there are no target under- and over-triage rates that have been published for mass casualty triage, all 4 systems had relatively high rates of under-triage.

Abstract/Text: Objective: To use a previously published criterion standard to compare the accuracy of 4 different mass casualty triage systems (Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport [SALT], Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment [START], Triage Sieve, and CareFlight) when used in an emergency department-based adult population. Methods: We performed a prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of adults aged 18 years or older presenting to a single tertiary care hospital emergency department. A co-investigator with prior emergency medical services (EMS) experience observed each subject's initial triage in the emergency department and recorded all data points necessary to assign a triage category using each of the 4 mass casualty triage systems being studied. Subjects' medical records were reviewed after their discharge from the hospital to assign the "correct" triage category using the criterion standard. The 4 mass casualty triage system assignments were then compared to the "correct" assignment. Descriptive statistics were used to compare accuracy and over- and under-triage rates for each triage system. Results: A total of 125 subjects were included in the study. Of those, 53% were male and 59% were transported by private vehicle. When compared to the criterion standard definitions, SALT was found to have the highest accuracy rate (52%; 95% CI 43-60) compared to START (36%; 95% CI 28-44), CareFlight (36%; 95% CI 28-44), and TriageSieve (37%; 95% CI 28-45). SALT also had the lowest under-triage rate (26%; 95% CI 19-34) compared to START (57%; 95% CI 48-66), CareFlight (58%; 95% CI 49-66), and TriageSieve (58%; 95% CI 49-66). SALT had the highest over-triage rate (22%; 95% CI 14-29) compared to START (7%; 95% CI 3-12), CareFlight (6%; 95% CI 2-11) and TriageSieve (6%; 95% CI 2-11). Conclusion: We found that SALT triage most often correctly triaged adult emergency department patients when compared to a previously published criterion standard. While there are no target under- and over-triage rates that have been published for mass casualty triage, all 4 systems had relatively high rates of under-triage.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: START (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment) triage is a tool that is available even to nonmedical rescue personnel in case of a disaster or mass casualty incident (MCI). In Italy, no data are available on whether application of the START protocol could improve patient outcomes during a disaster or MCI. We aimed to address whether "last-minute" START training of nonmedical personnel during a disaster or MCI would result in more effective triage of patients.
METHODS: In this case-control study, 400 nonmedical ambulance crew members were randomly assigned to a non-START or a START group (200 per group). The START group received last-minute START training. Each group examined 6000 patients, obtained from the Emergo Train System (ETS Italy, Bologna, Italy) victims database, and assigned patients a triage code (black-red-yellow-green) along with a reason for the assignment. Each rescuer triaged 30 patients within a 30-minute time frame. Results were analyzed according to Fisher's exact test for a P value<0.01. Under- and over-triage ratios were analyzed as well.
RESULTS: The START group completed the evaluations in 15 minutes, whereas the non-START group took 30 minutes. The START group correctly triaged 94.2% of their patients, as opposed to 59.83% of the non-START group (P<0.01). Under- and over-triage were, respectively, 2.73% and 3.08% for the START group versus 13.67% and 26.5% for the non-START group. The non-START group had 458 "preventable deaths" on 6000 cases because of incorrect triage, whereas the START group had 91.
CONCLUSIONS: Even a "last-minute" training on the START triage protocol allows nonmedical personnel to better identify and triage the victims of a disaster or MCI, resulting in more effective and efficient medical intervention. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:305-309).

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: START (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment) triage is a tool that is available even to nonmedical rescue personnel in case of a disaster or mass casualty incident (MCI). In Italy, no data are available on whether application of the START protocol could improve patient outcomes during a disaster or MCI. We aimed to address whether "last-minute" START training of nonmedical personnel during a disaster or MCI would result in more effective triage of patients.
METHODS: In this case-control study, 400 nonmedical ambulance crew members were randomly assigned to a non-START or a START group (200 per group). The START group received last-minute START training. Each group examined 6000 patients, obtained from the Emergo Train System (ETS Italy, Bologna, Italy) victims database, and assigned patients a triage code (black-red-yellow-green) along with a reason for the assignment. Each rescuer triaged 30 patients within a 30-minute time frame. Results were analyzed according to Fisher's exact test for a P value<0.01. Under- and over-triage ratios were analyzed as well.
RESULTS: The START group completed the evaluations in 15 minutes, whereas the non-START group took 30 minutes. The START group correctly triaged 94.2% of their patients, as opposed to 59.83% of the non-START group (P<0.01). Under- and over-triage were, respectively, 2.73% and 3.08% for the START group versus 13.67% and 26.5% for the non-START group. The non-START group had 458 "preventable deaths" on 6000 cases because of incorrect triage, whereas the START group had 91.
CONCLUSIONS: Even a "last-minute" training on the START triage protocol allows nonmedical personnel to better identify and triage the victims of a disaster or MCI, resulting in more effective and efficient medical intervention. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:305-309).

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: START (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment) triage is a tool that is available even to nonmedical rescue personnel in case of a disaster or mass casualty incident (MCI). In Italy, no data are available on whether application of the START protocol could improve patient outcomes during a disaster or MCI. We aimed to address whether "last-minute" START training of nonmedical personnel during a disaster or MCI would result in more effective triage of patients.
METHODS: In this case-control study, 400 nonmedical ambulance crew members were randomly assigned to a non-START or a START group (200 per group). The START group received last-minute START training. Each group examined 6000 patients, obtained from the Emergo Train System (ETS Italy, Bologna, Italy) victims database, and assigned patients a triage code (black-red-yellow-green) along with a reason for the assignment. Each rescuer triaged 30 patients within a 30-minute time frame. Results were analyzed according to Fisher's exact test for a P value<0.01. Under- and over-triage ratios were analyzed as well.
RESULTS: The START group completed the evaluations in 15 minutes, whereas the non-START group took 30 minutes. The START group correctly triaged 94.2% of their patients, as opposed to 59.83% of the non-START group (P<0.01). Under- and over-triage were, respectively, 2.73% and 3.08% for the START group versus 13.67% and 26.5% for the non-START group. The non-START group had 458 "preventable deaths" on 6000 cases because of incorrect triage, whereas the START group had 91.
CONCLUSIONS: Even a "last-minute" training on the START triage protocol allows nonmedical personnel to better identify and triage the victims of a disaster or MCI, resulting in more effective and efficient medical intervention. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:305-309).

Abstract/Text: STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) is a 3-item scale based on a simplification of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Stroke Scale. When performed by a physician, it has a high sensitivity and specificity in identifying patients with stroke who are candidates for thrombolysis. The objective of this study was to validate and verify the reproducibility of the CPSS when used by prehospital providers.
METHODS: The CPSS was performed and scored by a physician certified in the use of the NIH Stroke Scale (gold standard). Simultaneously, a group of 4 paramedics and EMTs scored the same patient.
RESULTS: A total of 860 scales were completed on a convenience sample of 171 patients from the emergency department and neurology inpatient service. Of these patients, 49 had a diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack. High reproducibility was observed among prehospital providers for total score (intraclass correlation coefficient [rI],.89; 95% confidence interval [CI],.87 to.92) and for each scale item: arm weakness, speech, and facial droop (.91,.84, and.75, respectively). There was excellent intraclass correlation between the physician and the prehospital providers for total score (rI,.92; 95% CI,.89 to.93) and for the specific items of the scale (.91,.87, and.78, respectively). Observation by the physician of an abnormality in any 1 of the 3 stroke scale items had a sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 87% in identifying a stroke patient. The sensitivity was 88% for identification of patients with anterior circulation strokes.
CONCLUSION: The CPSS has excellent reproducibility among prehospital personnel and physicians. It has good validity in identifying patients with stroke who are candidates for thrombolytic therapy, especially those with anterior circulation stroke.

Abstract/Text: INTRODUCTION: Using the pediatric version of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (JumpSTART) algorithm for the triage of pediatric patients in a mass-casualty incident (MCI) requires assessing the results of each step and determining whether to move to the next appropriate action. Inappropriate application can lead to performance of unnecessary actions or failure to perform necessary actions. Hypothesis/Problem To report overall accuracy and time required for triage, and to assess if the performance of unnecessary steps, or failure to perform required steps, in the triage algorithm was associated with inaccuracy of triage designation or increased time to reach a triage decision.
METHODS: Medical students participated in an MCI drill in which they triaged both live actors portraying patients and computer-based simulated patients to the four triage levels: minor, delayed, immediate, and expectant. Their performance was timed and compared to intended triage designations and a priori determined critical actions.
RESULTS: Thirty-three students completed 363 scenarios. The overall accuracy was 85.7% and overall mean time to assign a triage designation was 70.4 seconds, with decreasing times as triage acuity level decreased. In over one-half of cases, the student omitted at least one action and/or performed at least one action that was not required. Each unnecessary action increased time to triage by a mean of 8.4 seconds and each omitted action increased time to triage by a mean of 5.5 seconds. Discussion Increasing triage level, performance of inappropriate actions, and omission of recommended actions were all associated with increasing time to perform triage.

Abstract/Text: STUDY OBJECTIVE: The mass casualty triage system known as simple triage and rapid treatment (START) has been widely used in the United States since the 1980s. However, no outcomes assessment has been conducted after a disaster to determine whether assigned triage levels match patients' actual clinical status. Researchers hypothesize that START achieves at least 90% sensitivity and specificity for each triage level and ensures that the most critical patients are transported first to area hospitals.
METHODS: The performance of START was evaluated at a train crash disaster in 2003. Patient field triage categories and scene times were obtained from county reports. Patient medical records were then reviewed at all receiving hospitals. Victim arrival times were obtained and correct triage categories determined a priori using a combination of the modified Baxt criteria and hospital admission. Field and outcomes-based triage categories were compared, defining the appropriateness of each triage assignment.
RESULTS: Investigators reviewed 148 records at 14 receiving hospitals. Field triage designations comprised 22 red (immediate), 68 yellow (delayed), and 58 green (minor) patients. Outcomes-based designations found 2 red, 26 yellow, and 120 green patients. Seventy-nine patients were overtriaged, 3 were undertriaged, and 66 patients' outcomes matched their triage level. No triage level met both the 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity requirement set forth in the hypothesis, although red was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 16% to 100%) and green was 89.3% specific (95% CI 72% to 98%). The Obuchowski statistic was 0.81, meaning that victims from a higher-acuity outcome group had an 81% chance of assignment to a higher-acuity triage category. The median arrival time for red patients was more than 1 hour earlier than the other patients.
CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates poor agreement between triage levels assigned by START at a train crash and a priori outcomes criteria for each level. START ensured acceptable levels of undertriage (100% red sensitivity and 89% green specificity) but incorporated a substantial amount of overtriage. START proved useful in prioritizing transport of the most critical patients to area hospitals first.

Abstract/Text: STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) is a 3-item scale based on a simplification of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Stroke Scale. When performed by a physician, it has a high sensitivity and specificity in identifying patients with stroke who are candidates for thrombolysis. The objective of this study was to validate and verify the reproducibility of the CPSS when used by prehospital providers.
METHODS: The CPSS was performed and scored by a physician certified in the use of the NIH Stroke Scale (gold standard). Simultaneously, a group of 4 paramedics and EMTs scored the same patient.
RESULTS: A total of 860 scales were completed on a convenience sample of 171 patients from the emergency department and neurology inpatient service. Of these patients, 49 had a diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack. High reproducibility was observed among prehospital providers for total score (intraclass correlation coefficient [rI],.89; 95% confidence interval [CI],.87 to.92) and for each scale item: arm weakness, speech, and facial droop (.91,.84, and.75, respectively). There was excellent intraclass correlation between the physician and the prehospital providers for total score (rI,.92; 95% CI,.89 to.93) and for the specific items of the scale (.91,.87, and.78, respectively). Observation by the physician of an abnormality in any 1 of the 3 stroke scale items had a sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 87% in identifying a stroke patient. The sensitivity was 88% for identification of patients with anterior circulation strokes.
CONCLUSION: The CPSS has excellent reproducibility among prehospital personnel and physicians. It has good validity in identifying patients with stroke who are candidates for thrombolytic therapy, especially those with anterior circulation stroke.

Abstract/Text: STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study are to measure both the interrater agreement of nurses using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in children and the validity of the scale as measured by the correlation between triage level and proxy markers of severity.
METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study of the reliability and construct validity of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in 9 tertiary care pediatric emergency departments (EDs) across Canada during 2009 to 2010. Participants were a sample of children initially triaged as Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale level 2 (emergency) to level 5 (nonurgent). Participants were recruited immediately after their initial triage to undergo a second triage assessment by the research nurse. Both triages were performed blinded to the other. The primary outcome measures were the interrater agreement between the 2 nurses and the association between triage level and hospitalization. Secondary outcome measures were the association between triage level and health resource use and length of stay in the ED.
RESULTS: A total of 1,564 patients were approached and 1,464 consented. The overall interrater agreement was good, as demonstrated by a quadratic weighted κ score of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.76). Hospitalization proportions were 30%, 8.3%, 2.3%, and 2.2% for patients triaged at levels 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. There was also a strong association between triage levels and use of health care resources and length of stay.
CONCLUSION: The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale demonstrates a good interrater agreement between nurses across multiple pediatric EDs and is a valid triage tool, as demonstrated by its good association with markers of severity.

Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc.

Abstract/Text: 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.

Abstract/Text: 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.