A R Heller1, N Salvador2, M Frank3, J Schiffner4, R Kipke5, C Kleber6. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU-Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. axel.heller@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU-Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 3. DRF Air Rescue Base "Christoph 38", Dresden, Germany. 4. Red Cross Saxonia, German Society of Disaster Medicine (DGKM) Division Mitteldeutschland, Dresden, Germany. 5. EMS Teaching Unit, City of Dresden Fire Department and Disaster Preparedness, Dresden, Germany. 6. University Center of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, TU-Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regarding survival and quality of life recent mass casualty incidents again emphasize the importance of early identification of the correct degree of injury/illness to enable prioritization of treatment amongst patients and their transportation to an appropriate hospital. The present study investigated existing triage algorithms in terms of sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) as well as its process duration in a relevant emergency patient cohort. METHODS: In this study 500 consecutive air rescue missions were evaluated by means of standardized patient records. Classification of patients was accomplished by 19 emergency physicians. Every case was independently classified by at least 3 physicians without considering any triage algorithm. Existing triage algorithms Primary Ranking for Initial Orientation in Emergency Medical Services (PRIOR), modified Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (mSTaRT), Field Triage Score (FTS), Amberg-Schwandorf Algorithm for Triage (ASAV), Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (STaRT), Care Flight, and Triage Sieve were additionally carried out computer based on each case, to enable calculation of quality criteria. RESULTS: The analyzed cohort had an age of (mean ± SD) 59 ± 25 years, a NACA score of 3.5 ± 1.1 and consisted of 57% men. On arrival 8 patients were deceased. Consequently, 492 patients were included in the analysis. The distribution of triage categories T1/T2/T3 were 10%/47%/43%, respectively. The highest diagnostic quality was achieved with START, mSTaRT, and ASAV yielding a SE of 78% and a SP ranging from 80-83%. The subgroup of surgical patients reached a SE of 95% and a SP between 85-91%. The newly established algorithm PRIOR exerted a SE of 90% but merely a SP of 54% in the overall cohort thereby consuming the longest time for overall decision. CONCLUSION: Triage procedures with acceptable diagnostic quality exist to identify the most severely injured. Due to its high rate of false positive results (over-triage) the recently developed PRIOR algorithm will cause overload of available resources for the severely injured within mass casualty incident missions. Non-surgical patients still are poorly identified by the available algorithms.
BACKGROUND: Regarding survival and quality of life recent mass casualty incidents again emphasize the importance of early identification of the correct degree of injury/illness to enable prioritization of treatment amongst patients and their transportation to an appropriate hospital. The present study investigated existing triage algorithms in terms of sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) as well as its process duration in a relevant emergency patient cohort. METHODS: In this study 500 consecutive air rescue missions were evaluated by means of standardized patient records. Classification of patients was accomplished by 19 emergency physicians. Every case was independently classified by at least 3 physicians without considering any triage algorithm. Existing triage algorithms Primary Ranking for Initial Orientation in Emergency Medical Services (PRIOR), modified Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (mSTaRT), Field Triage Score (FTS), Amberg-Schwandorf Algorithm for Triage (ASAV), Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (STaRT), Care Flight, and Triage Sieve were additionally carried out computer based on each case, to enable calculation of quality criteria. RESULTS: The analyzed cohort had an age of (mean ± SD) 59 ± 25 years, a NACA score of 3.5 ± 1.1 and consisted of 57% men. On arrival 8 patients were deceased. Consequently, 492 patients were included in the analysis. The distribution of triage categories T1/T2/T3 were 10%/47%/43%, respectively. The highest diagnostic quality was achieved with START, mSTaRT, and ASAV yielding a SE of 78% and a SP ranging from 80-83%. The subgroup of surgical patients reached a SE of 95% and a SP between 85-91%. The newly established algorithm PRIOR exerted a SE of 90% but merely a SP of 54% in the overall cohort thereby consuming the longest time for overall decision. CONCLUSION: Triage procedures with acceptable diagnostic quality exist to identify the most severely injured. Due to its high rate of false positive results (over-triage) the recently developed PRIOR algorithm will cause overload of available resources for the severely injured within mass casualty incident missions. Non-surgical patients still are poorly identified by the available algorithms.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disaster management; Emergency preparedness; Mass casualty Incident; Triage
Authors: Rinaldo Bellomo; Michael Ackerman; Michael Bailey; Richard Beale; Greg Clancy; Valerie Danesh; Andreas Hvarfner; Edgar Jimenez; David Konrad; Michele Lecardo; Kimberly S Pattee; Josephine Ritchie; Kathie Sherman; Peter Tangkau Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Brian J Eastridge; Frank Butler; Charles E Wade; John B Holcomb; José Salinas; Howard R Champion; Lorne H Blackbourne Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Andreas Follmann; Marian Ohligs; Nadine Hochhausen; Stefan K Beckers; Rolf Rossaint; Michael Czaplik Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.428