Results of in-hospital triage in 17 mass casualty trainings: Underestimation of life-threatening injuries and need for re-triage
Keywords:disaster, triage, overtriage, undertriage, hospital
Background: In-hospital triage is the key factor for successful management of an overwhelming number of patients in lack of treatment capacity. The main goal of in-hospital triage is to identify casualties with life-threatening injuries and to allocate immediate medical aid. For the first time, we evaluate the quality of in-hospital triage in the German capital Berlin.
Methods: In this prospective observational study of 17 unheralded external mass casualty trainings for Berlin disaster hospitals in 2010/2011, we analyzed the in-hospital triage of 601 rouged casualty actors. Evaluation was performed by structured external survey and interview of the casualty actors after the disaster training. In 93 percent (n = 558), complete data were available and suitable for statistical analysis.
Results: The primary triage category was allocated correctly to 61 percent (n = 338) of the simulated injury severity. The following measurements were performed: anamnesis in 77 percent, physical examination 71 percent, blood pressure in 68 percent, heart rate in 61 percent, and oxygen saturation in 25 percent. Additive radiological diagnostics were used: 38 percent X-ray, 16 percent computer tomography, and 7 percent ultrasound. On an average, 1.6 ± 1.2 diagnostic tools were used to allocate injury severity to rouged casualties. Of all the rouged casualties, 24 percent overtriage and 16 percent undertriage were observed. Overtriage was significantly infrequent in level I trauma centers (p = 0.03). Of the patients with life-threatening injuries, 18 percent was undertriaged. Of the 62 percent with secondary right allocation to triage category, re-triage was only used in 4 percent.
Conclusion: The accuracy of in-hospital triage is low (61 percent). Predominately, the problem of overtriage (24 percent) due to insufficient triage training in contrast to undertriage (16 percent) occurs. The diagnostic triage adjuncts, ultrasound and re-triage, should be routinely used to lower the rate of undetected life threat in mass casualty incidents. Furthermore, a standardized training program and triage algorithm for in-hospital triage should be established.
Paul AO, Kay MV, Hornburger P, et al.: Mass casualty incident management by mSTaRT.MMW Fortschr Med. 2008; 150(19): 40-41.
Benson M, Koenig KL, Schultz CH: Disaster triage: START, then SAVE—A new method of dynamic triage for victims of a catastrophic earthquake. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1996; 11(2): 117-124.
Cone DC, Serra J, Kurland L: Comparison of the SALT and Smart triage systems using a virtual reality simulator with paramedic students. Eur J Emerg Med. 2011; 18(6): 314-321.
Ashkenazi I, Kessel B, Khashan T, et al.: Precision of in-hospital triage in mass-casualty incidents after terror attacks. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006; 21(1): 20-23.
Arbon P, Zeitz K, Ranse J, et al.: The reality of multiple casualty triage: Putting triage theory into practice at the scene of multiple casualty vehicular accidents. Emerg Med J. 2008; 25(4): 230-234.
Pelaccia T, Delplancq H, Triby E, et al.: Can teaching methods based on pattern recognition skill development optimise triage in mass-casualty incidents? Emerg Med J. 2009; 26(12): 899-902.
Hirshberg A, Holcomb JB, Mattox KL: Hospital trauma care in multiple-casualty incidents: A critical view. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 37(6): 647-652.
Jenkins JL, McCarthy ML, Sauer LM, et al.: Mass-casualty triage: Time for an evidence-based approach. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008; 23(1): 3-8.
How to Cite
Copyright 2007-2023, Weston Medical Publishing, LLC
All Rights Reserved