Comparison of START and SALT triage methodologies to reference standard definitions and to a field mass casualty simulation
Keywords:MCI, START, SALT, gold standard
Objectives: We compared Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Intervention, Treatment/Transport (SALT) and Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) triage methodologies to a published reference standard, and evaluated the accuracy of the START method applied by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel in a field simulation.
Design: Simulated mass casualty incident (MCI). Paramedics trained in START triage assigned each victim to green (minimal), yellow (delayed), red (immediate), or black (dead) categories. These victim classifications were recorded by investigators and compared to reference standard definitions of each triage category. The victim scenarios were also compared to the a priori classifications as developed by the investigators.
Setting: MCI field simulation.
Main outcome measure: Comparison of the correlation of START and SALT triage methodologies to reference standard definitions. Another outcome measure was the accuracy of the application of START triage by EMS personnel in the field exercise.
Results: The strongest correlation to the reference standard was SALT with an r = 0.860 (p < 0.001) and κ = 0.632 (p < 0.001). START and SALT triage systems agreed 100 percent on both black and green classifications. There were significant correlations between the field triage and both START and SALT methods (p < 0.001, respectfully). SALT had a significantly lower undertriage rate (9 percent [95%CI 2-15]) than both START (20 percent [95%CI 11-28]) and field triage (37 percent [95%CI 24-52]). There were no significant differences in overtriage rates.
Conclusions: In our study, the SALT triage system was overall more accurate triage method than START at classifying patients, specifically in the delayed and immediate categories. In our field exercise, paramedic use of the START methodology yielded a higher rate of undertriage compared to the SALT classification.
Cross KP, Cicero MX: Head-to-head comparison of disaster triage methods in pediatric, adult, and geriatric patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2013; 61(6): e668-e676.
Cone DC, MacMillan DS: Mass-casualty triage systems: A hint of science. Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12: 739-741.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services: START Adult Triage Algorithm, 2014. Available at http://chemm.nlm.nih.gov/startadult.htm. Accessed October 1, 2015.
Sacco WJ, Navin DM, Fiedler KE, et al.: Precise formulation and evidence-based application of resource-constrained triage. Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12(8): 759-770.
Kahn CA, Schultz CH, Miller KT, et al.: Does START triage work?. An outcomes assessment after a disaster. Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 54(3): e424-e430.
Gebhart ME, Pence R: START triage: Does it work? Disaster Manag Response. 2007; 5(3): 68-73.
Garner A, Lee A, Harrison K, et al.: Comparative analysis of multiple-casualty incident triage algorithms. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38(5): 541-548.
Lerner EB, Schwartz RB, Coule PL, et al.: Mass casualty triage: An evaluation of the data and development of a proposed national guideline. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008; 2(suppl 1): S25-S34.
Cone DC, Serra J, Burns K, et al.: Pilot test of the SALT mass casualty triage system. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009; 13(4): 536-540.
Lerner EB, Schwartz RB, Coule PL, et al.: Use of SALT triage in a simulated mass-casualty incident. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010; 14(1): 21-25.
Lerner EB, McKee CH, Cady CE, et al.: A consensus-based gold standard for the evaluation of mass casualty triage systems. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015; 19(2): 267-271.
Copyright 2007-2023, Weston Medical Publishing, LLC
All Rights Reserved