Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Comparative study of physiological and anatomical triage in major incidents using a new simulation model

Kristina Lennquist Montán, RN, Amir Khorram-Manesh, MD, PhD, Per Örtenwall, MD, PhD, Sten Lennquist, MD, PhD

Abstract


Objectives: To develop and evaluate a simulation model making it possible to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of different triage methods; to compare the results of physiological and anatomical triage performed by medical staff with different levels of skills with the use of this model.
Design and outcome measures: A simulation model was created based on patient cards giving sufficient physiological data as a base for physiological triage and anatomical data as description of findings at exposure, providing a base for anatomical triage. Three groups with different skills in disaster medicine, nurse students (n = 23), ambulance nurses (n = 20), and surgeons (n = 30), performed triage based on the patient cards. The outcome was given as potential avoidable mortality.The results of the triage for the two methods were compared to the result of the same triage performed by an expert group.
Results: Differences in triage: Within the groups, the difference between the two triage methods was only significant for the surgeons (p < 0.001), who had a better result using the anatomical triage. For the “physiological triage,” there were no significant differences between the three groups. Regarding the results for the “anatomical triage,” there were significant differences between both the nurse students and the surgeons (p < 0.001) and the ambulance nurses and the surgeons (p < 0.05). Results in distribution of patients and potential avoidable mortality: Within the groups, the difference between the two methods was significant for all the groups (nurse students, p < 0.01; ambulance nurses, p < 0.01; and surgeons, p < 0.001). They all had a better outcome with anatomical triage (nurse students, 6.1 percent; ambulance nurses, 6.1 percent; and surgeons 19.5 percent less mortality than physiological triage). The group that made the best outcome from physiological triage was the ambulance nurses who had a significantly better result than both nurse students (p < 0.01) and surgeons (p < 0.001). The mean mortality rate for ambulance nurses was 31.1 percent, nurse students, 37 percent, and surgeons was 38.1 percent. Regarding the anatomical triage, there was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the groups of nurse students (30.9 percent mortality) and surgeons (18.9 percent mortality). The differences between the rest of the groups were also significant (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: The model developed for this study made it possible to compare different methods of triage and also triage performed by staff of different levels of training and experience. Anatomical triage for all test groups in this study gave significantly better results than physiological triage regarding calculated outcome and this difference increased with increasing experience.


Keywords


triage, physiological triage, triage sort, anatomical triage, simulation model, mass casualty, major incident, disaster medicine

Full Text:

PDF

References


Frykberg ER: Triage: Principles and practice. Scand J Surg. 2005; 94(4): 272-278.

Einav S, Feigenberg Z,Weissman C, et al.: Evacuation priorities in mass casualty terror-related events: Implications for contingency planning. Ann Surg. 2004; 239(3): 304-310.

Pinkert M, Lehavi O, Goren OB, et al.: Primary triage, evacuation priorities, and rapid primary distribution between adjacent hospitals- lessons learned from a suicide bomber attack in downtown Tel- Aviv. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008; 23(4): 337-341.

Ryan JM: Triage: Principles and pressures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2008; 34(5): 427-432.

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.

Challen K,Walter D: Physiological scoring: An aid to emergency medical services transport decisions? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010; 25(4): 320-323.

Kilner T, Hall FJ: Triage decisions of United Kingdom police firearms officers using a multiple-casualty scenario paper exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005; 20(1): 40-46.

Zoraster RM, Chidester C, Koenig W: Field triage and patient maldistribution in a mass-casualty incident. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007; 22(3): 224-229.

Sapp RF, Brice JH, Myers JB, et al.: Triage performance of firstyear medical students using a multiple-casualty scenario, paper exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010; 25(3): 239-245.

Rehn M, Andersen JE,Vigerust T, et al.: A concept for major incidents triage: Full-scaled simulation feasibility study. BMC Emerg Med. 2010; 10(17): 1-7.

Subbarao I, Bond WF, Johnson C, et al.: Using innovative simulation modalities for civilian-based, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive training in the acute management of terrorist victims: A pilot study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006; 21(4): 272-275.

Bond WF, Subbarao I, Kimmel SR, et al.:Testing the use of symptombased terrorism triage algorithms with hospital-based providers. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008; 23(3): 234-241.

Navin DM, Sacco WJ,Waddell R: Operational comparison of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment method and the Sacco Triage method in mass casualty exercises. J Trauma. 2010; 69(1): 215-225.

Risavi BL, Salen PN, Heller MB, et al.: A two-hour intervention using START improves prehospital triage of mass casualty incidents. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2001; 5(2): 197-199.

Garner A, Lee A, Harrison K, et al.: Comparative analysis of multiple-casualty incident triage algorithms. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38(5): 541-548.

Gebhart ME, Pence R: START triage: Does it work? Disaster Manag Response. 2007; 5(3): 68-73.

Kahn CA, Schultz CH, Miller KT, et al.: Does START triage work? An outcomes assessment after a disaster. Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 54(3): 424-430.

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, 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: S25-S34.

Sacco WJ, Navin M, Fiedler KE, et al.: Precise formulation and evidence-based application of resource-constrained triage. Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12(8): 759-770.

Hsu EB, Jenckes MW, Catlett CL, et al.: Effectiveness of hospital staff mass-casualty incident training methods: A systematic literature review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2004; 19(3): 191-199.

Lennquist S: Education and training in disaster medicine. Scand J Surg. 2005; 94(4): 300-310.

Turégano-Fuentes F, Pérez-Diaz D, Sanz-Sánchez M, et al.: Overall assessment of the response to terrorist bombings in Trains, Madrid, 11 March 2004. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2008; 34(5): 433-441.

Lennquist Montán K, Bemelman M, Dobson B, et al.: ESTES postgraduate training in medical response to major incidents (MRMI): Experiences from the first five courses. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2011; 37 (Suppl): S52.

Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, et al.: A revision of the trauma score. J Trauma. 1989; 29(5): 623-629.

Purtill MA, Benedict K, Hernandez-Boussard T, et al.:Validation of a prehospital trauma triage tool: A 10-year perspective. J Trauma. 2008; 65(6): 1253-1257.

Hupert N, Hollingsworth E, Xiong W: Is overtriage associated with increased mortality? Insights from a simulation model of mass casualty trauma care. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2007; 1 (Suppl 1): S14-S24.

Armstrong JH, Hammond J, Hirshberg A, et al.: Is overtriage associated with increased mortality? The evidence says “yes”. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008; 2: 4-5.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2011.0068

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.