An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry
Objective Triage is the process of identifying patients with both the greatest clinical need and the greatest likelihood of benefit in the setting of limited clinical resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of formal mass casualty incident triage tools to identify pa...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of emergency medicine 2023-08, Vol.25 (8), p.659-666 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 666 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 659 |
container_title | Canadian journal of emergency medicine |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Jerome, David Savage, David W. Pietrosanu, Matthew |
description | Objective
Triage is the process of identifying patients with both the greatest clinical need and the greatest likelihood of benefit in the setting of limited clinical resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of formal mass casualty incident triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.
Methods
Data from the Alberta Trauma Registry (ATR) was used to assess seven triage tools: START, JumpSTART, SALT, RAMP, MPTT, BCD and MITT. Clinical data captured in the ATR was used to determine which triage category each of the seven tools would have applied to each patient. These categorizations were compared to a reference standard definition based on the patients’ need for specific urgent lifesaving interventions.
Results
Of the 9448 records that were captured 8652 were included in our analysis. The most sensitive triage tool was MPTT, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.76 (0.75, 0.78). Four of the seven triage tools evaluated had sensitivities below 0.45. JumpSTART had the lowest sensitivity and the highest under-triage rate for pediatric patients. All the triage tools evaluated had a moderate to high positive predictive value (> 0.67) for patients who had experienced penetrating trauma.
Conclusions
There was a wide range in the sensitivity of triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions. MPTT, BCD and MITT were the most sensitive triage tools assessed. All of the triage tools assessed should be employed with caution during mass casualty incidents as they may fail to identify a large proportion of patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2825157572</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2850684044</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-422625feff6619066bfdcf032d53655b30bcc5d14a13f41af25aa5d32fd739593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLtOwzAUhi0EolB4AQZkiYUl4HuSsaq4SZW6wGw5iV1S5VJ8nCFvjyGlSAxMPpa_8x-fD6ErSu4oIek9CK7SLCGMJ4RIlifZETqjIqNJRgQ_PtRcztA5wJYQyiTNTtGMp5yonPEztF502ABYgNZ2AfcOt_GKSwODacKIg6_NxmIYIdgW8AB1t8Hh3eJFU1gfTATM0Brs7aaG4McLdOJMA_Zyf87R2-PD6_I5Wa2fXpaLVVJypkIiGFNMOuucUjQnShWuKh3hrJJcSVlwUpSlrKgwlDtBjWPSGFlx5qqU5zLnc3Q75e58_zFYCLqtobRNYzrbD6BZFleVqUxZRG_-oNt-8F38XaQkUZkgQkSKTVTpewBvnd75ujV-1JToL9160q2jbv2tW2ex6XofPRStrQ4tP34jwCcA4lO3sf539j-xn9ioijo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2850684044</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Jerome, David ; Savage, David W. ; Pietrosanu, Matthew</creator><creatorcontrib>Jerome, David ; Savage, David W. ; Pietrosanu, Matthew</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
Triage is the process of identifying patients with both the greatest clinical need and the greatest likelihood of benefit in the setting of limited clinical resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of formal mass casualty incident triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.
Methods
Data from the Alberta Trauma Registry (ATR) was used to assess seven triage tools: START, JumpSTART, SALT, RAMP, MPTT, BCD and MITT. Clinical data captured in the ATR was used to determine which triage category each of the seven tools would have applied to each patient. These categorizations were compared to a reference standard definition based on the patients’ need for specific urgent lifesaving interventions.
Results
Of the 9448 records that were captured 8652 were included in our analysis. The most sensitive triage tool was MPTT, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.76 (0.75, 0.78). Four of the seven triage tools evaluated had sensitivities below 0.45. JumpSTART had the lowest sensitivity and the highest under-triage rate for pediatric patients. All the triage tools evaluated had a moderate to high positive predictive value (> 0.67) for patients who had experienced penetrating trauma.
Conclusions
There was a wide range in the sensitivity of triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions. MPTT, BCD and MITT were the most sensitive triage tools assessed. All of the triage tools assessed should be employed with caution during mass casualty incidents as they may fail to identify a large proportion of patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1481-8035</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1481-8043</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37306923</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Disaster medicine ; Emergency Medicine ; Mass casualty incidents ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Original Research ; Patient assessment ; Public Health ; Trauma care</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2023-08, Vol.25 (8), p.659-666</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU) 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-422625feff6619066bfdcf032d53655b30bcc5d14a13f41af25aa5d32fd739593</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1831-4273 ; 0000-0003-2837-3127 ; 0000-0003-2349-0535</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37306923$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jerome, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, David W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pietrosanu, Matthew</creatorcontrib><title>An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry</title><title>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Can J Emerg Med</addtitle><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><description>Objective
Triage is the process of identifying patients with both the greatest clinical need and the greatest likelihood of benefit in the setting of limited clinical resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of formal mass casualty incident triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.
Methods
Data from the Alberta Trauma Registry (ATR) was used to assess seven triage tools: START, JumpSTART, SALT, RAMP, MPTT, BCD and MITT. Clinical data captured in the ATR was used to determine which triage category each of the seven tools would have applied to each patient. These categorizations were compared to a reference standard definition based on the patients’ need for specific urgent lifesaving interventions.
Results
Of the 9448 records that were captured 8652 were included in our analysis. The most sensitive triage tool was MPTT, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.76 (0.75, 0.78). Four of the seven triage tools evaluated had sensitivities below 0.45. JumpSTART had the lowest sensitivity and the highest under-triage rate for pediatric patients. All the triage tools evaluated had a moderate to high positive predictive value (> 0.67) for patients who had experienced penetrating trauma.
Conclusions
There was a wide range in the sensitivity of triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions. MPTT, BCD and MITT were the most sensitive triage tools assessed. All of the triage tools assessed should be employed with caution during mass casualty incidents as they may fail to identify a large proportion of patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.</description><subject>Disaster medicine</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine</subject><subject>Mass casualty incidents</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Patient assessment</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Trauma care</subject><issn>1481-8035</issn><issn>1481-8043</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kLtOwzAUhi0EolB4AQZkiYUl4HuSsaq4SZW6wGw5iV1S5VJ8nCFvjyGlSAxMPpa_8x-fD6ErSu4oIek9CK7SLCGMJ4RIlifZETqjIqNJRgQ_PtRcztA5wJYQyiTNTtGMp5yonPEztF502ABYgNZ2AfcOt_GKSwODacKIg6_NxmIYIdgW8AB1t8Hh3eJFU1gfTATM0Brs7aaG4McLdOJMA_Zyf87R2-PD6_I5Wa2fXpaLVVJypkIiGFNMOuucUjQnShWuKh3hrJJcSVlwUpSlrKgwlDtBjWPSGFlx5qqU5zLnc3Q75e58_zFYCLqtobRNYzrbD6BZFleVqUxZRG_-oNt-8F38XaQkUZkgQkSKTVTpewBvnd75ujV-1JToL9160q2jbv2tW2ex6XofPRStrQ4tP34jwCcA4lO3sf539j-xn9ioijo</recordid><startdate>20230801</startdate><enddate>20230801</enddate><creator>Jerome, David</creator><creator>Savage, David W.</creator><creator>Pietrosanu, Matthew</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1831-4273</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2837-3127</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2349-0535</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230801</creationdate><title>An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry</title><author>Jerome, David ; Savage, David W. ; Pietrosanu, Matthew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-422625feff6619066bfdcf032d53655b30bcc5d14a13f41af25aa5d32fd739593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Disaster medicine</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine</topic><topic>Mass casualty incidents</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Patient assessment</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Trauma care</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jerome, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, David W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pietrosanu, Matthew</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jerome, David</au><au>Savage, David W.</au><au>Pietrosanu, Matthew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><stitle>Can J Emerg Med</stitle><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><date>2023-08-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>659</spage><epage>666</epage><pages>659-666</pages><issn>1481-8035</issn><eissn>1481-8043</eissn><abstract>Objective
Triage is the process of identifying patients with both the greatest clinical need and the greatest likelihood of benefit in the setting of limited clinical resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of formal mass casualty incident triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.
Methods
Data from the Alberta Trauma Registry (ATR) was used to assess seven triage tools: START, JumpSTART, SALT, RAMP, MPTT, BCD and MITT. Clinical data captured in the ATR was used to determine which triage category each of the seven tools would have applied to each patient. These categorizations were compared to a reference standard definition based on the patients’ need for specific urgent lifesaving interventions.
Results
Of the 9448 records that were captured 8652 were included in our analysis. The most sensitive triage tool was MPTT, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.76 (0.75, 0.78). Four of the seven triage tools evaluated had sensitivities below 0.45. JumpSTART had the lowest sensitivity and the highest under-triage rate for pediatric patients. All the triage tools evaluated had a moderate to high positive predictive value (> 0.67) for patients who had experienced penetrating trauma.
Conclusions
There was a wide range in the sensitivity of triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions. MPTT, BCD and MITT were the most sensitive triage tools assessed. All of the triage tools assessed should be employed with caution during mass casualty incidents as they may fail to identify a large proportion of patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>37306923</pmid><doi>10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1831-4273</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2837-3127</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2349-0535</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1481-8035 |
ispartof | Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2023-08, Vol.25 (8), p.659-666 |
issn | 1481-8035 1481-8043 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2825157572 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Disaster medicine Emergency Medicine Mass casualty incidents Medicine Medicine & Public Health Original Research Patient assessment Public Health Trauma care |
title | An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T05%3A05%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20assessment%20of%20mass%20casualty%20triage%20systems%20using%20the%20Alberta%20trauma%20registry&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Jerome,%20David&rft.date=2023-08-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=659&rft.epage=666&rft.pages=659-666&rft.issn=1481-8035&rft.eissn=1481-8043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2850684044%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2850684044&rft_id=info:pmid/37306923&rfr_iscdi=true |