These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnostic precision of triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents. English version.
    Author: Heller AR, Salvador N, Frank M, Schiffner J, Kipke R, Kleber C.
    Journal: Anaesthesist; 2019 Feb; 68(Suppl 1):15-24. PubMed ID: 28798972.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]