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: Comparison of Electronic Versus Manual Mass-Casualty Incident Triage.
    Author: Bolduc C, Maghraby N, Fok P, Luong TM, Homier V.
    Journal: Prehosp Disaster Med; 2018 Jun; 33(3):273-278. PubMed ID: 29661267.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: IntroductionMass-casualty incidents (MCIs) easily overwhelm a health care facility's human and material resources through the extraordinary influx of casualties. Efficient and accurate triage of incoming casualties is a critical step in the hospital disaster response.Hypothesis/ProblemTraditionally, triage during MCIs has been manually performed using paper cards. This study investigated the use of electronic Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) triage as compared to the manual method. METHODS: This observational, crossover study was performed during a live MCI simulation at an urban, Canadian, Level 1 trauma center on May 26, 2016. Health care providers (two medical doctors [MDs], two paramedics [PMs], and two registered nurses [RNs]) each triaged a total of 30 simulated patients - 15 by manual (paper-based) and 15 by electronic (computer-based) START triage. Accuracy of triage categories and time of triage were analyzed. Post-simulation, patients and participating health care providers also completed a feedback form. RESULTS: There was no difference in accuracy of triage between the electronic and manual methods overall, 83% and 80% (P=1.0), between providers or between triage categories. On average, triage time using the manual method was estimated to be 8.4 seconds faster (P<.001) for PMs; and while small differences in triage times were observed for MDs and RNs, they were not significant. Data from the participant feedback survey showed that the electronic method was preferred by most health care providers. Patients had no preference for either method. However, patients perceived the computer-based method as "less personal" than the manual triage method, but they also perceived the former as "better organized." CONCLUSION: Hospital-based electronic START triage had the same accuracy as hospital-based manual START triage, regardless of triage provider type or acuity of patient presentations. Time of triage results suggest that speed may be related to provider familiarity with a modality rather than the modality itself. Finally, according to patient and provider perceptions, electronic triage is a feasible modality for hospital triage of mass casualties. Further studies are required to assess the performance of electronic hospital triage, in the context of a rapid surge of patients, and should consider additional efficiencies built in to electronic triage systems. This study presents a framework for assessing the accuracy, triage time, and feasibility of digital technologies in live simulation training or actual MCIs. BolducC, MaghrabyN, FokP, LuongTM, HomierV. Comparison of electronic versus manual mass-casualty incident triage. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):273-278.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]