Literature DB >> 19099281

[Validation of the prehospital mSTaRT triage algorithm. A pilot study for the development of a multicenter evaluation].

A O Paul1, M V Kay, T Huppertz, F Mair, Y Dierking, P Hornburger, W Mutschler, K-G Kanz.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Successful management of a mass casualty incident requires integrated operating procedures. A common division of victims into descriptive needs-based groups and the corresponding decision processes is the key to ensuring a successful operational response. The mSTaRT ("modified simple triage and rapid treatment") algorithm should enable emergency medical technicians to conduct triage, perform appropriate medical interventions, and coordinate transportation to adequate care facilities. The aim of this study was to design a concept to validate the mSTaRT algorithm.
METHODS: Standardized evaluation sheets were distributed to emergency medical services (EMS) staff to prospectively classify trauma patients according to the mSTaRT algorithm: red (immediate: critically injured patients who can be helped by immediate transport), yellow (urgent: severely injured patients whose transport can be delayed), or green (delayed: patients with minor injuries who need help less urgently). The patients were then reevaluated in the emergency department, and the results were compared. The main points of the comparison were consistency of triage category and rates of overtriage and undertriage.
RESULTS: The study included 151 trauma patients. Of these, 62.3% were triaged correctly, 10.6% were overtriaged (2.6% critical overtriage), and 27.1% were undertriaged (4.0% critical undertriage). In the critically injured (immediate) category, the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 17.3 (95% CI 3.8-795), and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.51 (95% CI 0.22-0.83). The probability of identifying a critically injured (immediate) patient was 17.3 times higher than the probability of identifying a severely (urgent) or minor (delayed) injured patient as immediate. Therefore, the rate of overtriage was very low. But every second patient who should have been classified as immediate was undertriaged by the EMS personnel. This undertriage was due to patients' suffering from head trauma, a well-known problem in the clinical context but a new problem in the triage context.
CONCLUSION: The results of our pilot study show that by using mSTaRT, patients designated as yellow (urgent) and green (delayed) will be accurately distinguished from red (immediate) patients; therefore, only a small number of patients will be overtriaged as red. However, some patients with severe head injury may not be initially assigned to the red category as required, resulting in undertriage. Consequently, modification of the mSTaRT procedures should be considered. A further identifier in the algorithm or checkpoint in the process should act as a safety net for catching severe head injury. A larger data set is required to further validate the mSTaRT algorithm. This will be acquired by means of a multicenter study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19099281     DOI: 10.1007/s00113-008-1517-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Unfallchirurg        ISSN: 0177-5537            Impact factor:   1.000


  13 in total

1.  Advanced or basic life support for trauma: meta-analysis and critical review of the literature.

Authors:  M Liberman; D Mulder; J Sampalis
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2000-10

Review 2.  Medical management of disasters and mass casualties from terrorist bombings: how can we cope?

Authors:  Eric R Frykberg
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2002-08

3.  Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

Authors:  Andy S Jagoda; Stephen V Cantrill; Robert L Wears; Alex Valadka; E John Gallagher; Steven H Gottesfeld; Michael P Pietrzak; Jason Bolden; John J Bruns; Robert Zimmerman
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.721

4.  London bombings July 2005: the immediate pre-hospital medical response.

Authors:  D J Lockey; R Mackenzie; J Redhead; D Wise; T Harris; A Weaver; K Hines; G E Davies
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.262

5.  Field triage for on-scene helicopter transport.

Authors:  M Rhodes; R Perline; J Aronson; A Rappe
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  1986-11

6.  Disaster triage: START, then SAVE--a new method of dynamic triage for victims of a catastrophic earthquake.

Authors:  M Benson; K L Koenig; C H Schultz
Journal:  Prehosp Disaster Med       Date:  1996 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.040

7.  The trauma triage rule: a new, resource-based approach to the prehospital identification of major trauma victims.

Authors:  W G Baxt; G Jones; D Fortlage
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 5.721

8.  'Talk and die' patients presenting to a major trauma centre over a 10 year period: a critical review.

Authors:  Tony Goldschlager; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Craig D Winter
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2007-04-12       Impact factor: 1.961

9.  Comparative analysis of multiple-casualty incident triage algorithms.

Authors:  A Garner; A Lee; K Harrison; C H Schultz
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.721

10.  Triage decisions of United Kingdom police firearms officers using a multiple-casualty scenario paper exercise.

Authors:  Tim Kilner; F John Hall
Journal:  Prehosp Disaster Med       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.040

View more
  7 in total

1.  [Diagnostic quality of triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents].

Authors:  A R Heller; N Salvador; M Frank; J Schiffner; R Kipke; C Kleber
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  [Preparedness of hospital physicians for a mass casualty incident. A German survey amongst 7,700 physicians].

Authors:  P Fischer; A Wafaisade; E A M Neugebauer; T Kees; H Bail; O Weber; C Burger; K Kabir
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 3.  [Triage protocols for mass casualty incidents : An overview 30 years after START].

Authors:  S Streckbein; T Kohlmann; J Luxen; T Birkholz; S Prückner
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  Diagnostic precision of triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents. English version.

Authors:  A R Heller; N Salvador; M Frank; J Schiffner; R Kipke; C Kleber
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  [Interface between preclinical and clinical trauma care: Analysis of the processes in a trauma network].

Authors:  A O Paul; S Poloczek; C Güthoff; M Richter; A Ekkernkamp; G Matthes
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.000

6.  Primary mass casualty incident triage: evidence for the benefit of yearly brief re-training from a simulation study.

Authors:  Michael S Dittmar; Philipp Wolf; Marc Bigalke; Bernhard M Graf; Torsten Birkholz
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  [Management of COVID-19 mass casualty incidents in nursing and retirement homes].

Authors:  Wolfgang Schreiber; Philipp Wolf; Nicole Bigalke; Marc U Bigalke; Bernhard M Graf; Michael S Dittmar
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 0.840

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.