Mass casualty triage: an evaluation of the data and development of a proposed national guideline.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (Impact Factor: 1.14). 10/2008; 2 Suppl 1:S25-34. DOI: 10.1097/DMP.0b013e318182194e
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Mass casualty triage is a critical skill. Although many systems exist to guide providers in making triage decisions, there is little scientific evidence available to demonstrate that any of the available systems have been validated. Furthermore, in the United States there is little consistency from one jurisdiction to the next in the application of mass casualty triage methodology. There are no nationally agreed upon categories or color designations. This review reports on a consensus committee process used to evaluate and compare commonly used triage systems, and to develop a proposed national mass casualty triage guideline. The proposed guideline, entitled SALT (sort, assess, life-saving interventions, treatment and/or transport) triage, was developed based on the best available science and consensus opinion. It incorporates aspects from all of the existing triage systems to create a single overarching guide for unifying the mass casualty triage process across the United States.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Damage control resuscitation (DCR) is emerging as a standard practice in civilian and military trauma care. Primary objectives include resolution of immediate life threats followed by optimization of physiological status in the perioperative period. To accomplish this, DCR employs a unique hypotensive–hemostatic resuscitation strategy that avoids traditional crystalloid intravenous fluids in favor of early blood component use in ratios mimicking whole blood. The presence of uncontrolled major hemorrhage (UMH) coupled with a delay in access to hemostatic surgical intervention remains a primary contributor to preventable death in both combat and in many domestic settings, including rural areas and disaster sites. As a result, civilian and military emergency care leaders throughout the world have sought a means to project DCR principles forward of the traditional trauma resuscitation bay, into such remote environments as disaster scenes, rural health facilities, and the contemporary battlefield. After reflecting on experiences from past conflicts, defining current capability gaps, and examining available and potential solutions, a strategy for “remote damage control resuscitation” (RDCR) has been proposed. In order for RDCR to progress from concept to clinical strategy, it will be necessary to define existing gaps in knowledge and clinical capability; develop a lexicon so that investigators and operators may understand each other; establish coherent research and development agendas; and execute comprehensive investigations designed to predict, diagnose, and mitigate the consequences of hemorrhagic shock and acute traumatic coagulopathy before they become irreversible. This article seeks to introduce the concept of RDCR; to reinforce the importance of identifying and optimally managing UMH and the resulting shock state as part of a comprehensive approach to out-of-hospital stabilization and en route care; and to propose investigational strategies to enable the development and broad implementation of RDCR principles.
    Transfusion 01/2013; 53(S1). · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) include natural (eg, earthquake) or human (eg, terrorism or technical) events. They produce an imbalance between medical needs and resources necessitating the use of triage strategies. Triage of casualties must be performed accurately and efficiently if providers are to do the greatest good for the greatest number. There is limited research on the validation of triage system efficacy in determining the priority of care for victims of MCI, particularly those involving chemicals.
    American journal of disaster medicine 01/2014; 9(2):137-50.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The Amberg-Schwandorf Algorithm for Primary Triage (ASAV) is a novel primary triage concept specifically for physician manned emergency medical services (EMS) systems. In this study, we determined the diagnostic reliability and the time requirements of ASAV triage.Methods Seven hundred eighty triage runs performed by 76 trained EMS providers of varying professional qualification were included into the study. Patients were simulated using human dummies with written vital signs sheets. Triage results were compared to a standard solution, which was developed in a modified Delphi procedure. Test performance parameters (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR), under-triage, and over-triage) were calculated. Time measurements comprised the complete triage and tagging process and included the time span for walking to the subsequent patient. Results were compared to those published for mSTaRT. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was performed for employment status (career / volunteer), team qualification, and previous triage training.ResultsFor red patients, ASAV sensitivity was 87%, specificity 91%, positive LR 9.7, negative LR 0.139, over-triage 6%, and under-triage 10%. There were no significant differences related to mSTaRT. Per patient, ASAV triage required a mean of 35.4 sec (75th percentile 46 sec, 90th percentile 58 sec). Volunteers needed slightly more time to perform triage than EMS professionals. Previous mSTaRT training of the provider reduced under-triage significantly. There were significant differences in time requirements for triage depending on the expected triage category.Conclusions The ASAV is a specific concept for primary triage in physician governed EMS systems. It may detect red patients reliably. The test performance criteria are comparable to that of mSTaRT, whereas ASAV triage might be accomplished slightly faster. From the data, there was no evidence for a clinically significant reliability difference between typical staffing of mobile intensive care units, patient transport ambulances, or disaster response volunteers. Up to now, there is no clinical validation of either triage concept. Therefore, reality based evaluation studies are needed.
    Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine 08/2014; 22(1):50. · 1.93 Impact Factor