Streckbein S, Kohlmann T, Luxen J, Birkholz T, Prückner S
Institut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Schillerstr. 53, 80336, München, Deutschland.
Anästhesiologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland.
Unfallchirurg. 2016 Aug;119(8):620-31. doi: 10.1007/s00113-014-2717-x.
Since the publication of the first mass casualty triage protocol approximately 30 years ago, numerous adaptions and alternatives have been introduced and are currently in use throughout the world. This variety may represent a challenge for the cooperation between emergency medical providers and the interoperability of emergency medical services often required during mass casualty incidents. To enhance cooperation and interoperability a standardization of triage protocols is required.
This survey was carried out in order to identify and characterize published triage protocols on national and international levels. Furthermore, evidence for validation of the identified triage algorithms was discussed and recommendations for standardization of triage protocols are given.
In a systematic literature search 59 relevant articles were identified and evaluated with respect to the given objectives.
A total of 12 triage concepts were identified and characterized which are categorized according to the basic principle.
The endpoints of the studies, the chosen observation units and the mode of data collection were discussed with respect to their impact on validation. Furthermore, the impact of the degree and dynamics of system capacity overload, which are pathognomonic for mass casualty incidents, were discussed.
There is not sufficient evidence to declare one of the triage protocols superior in all aspects to the others and no triage protocol has been implemented on a comprehensive level in Germany. In order to initialize a national or regional convergence process towards an interoperability of emergency medical services, the model uniform core criteria for mass casualty triage approach has been identified as being appropriate.
自大约30年前首个大规模伤亡分诊协议发布以来,已引入了众多改编版本和替代方案,目前在全球范围内广泛使用。这种多样性可能对紧急医疗服务提供者之间的合作以及大规模伤亡事件中经常需要的紧急医疗服务的互操作性构成挑战。为了加强合作与互操作性,分诊协议需要标准化。
开展此次调查,以识别和描述国家和国际层面已发布的分诊协议。此外,还讨论了所识别的分诊算法的验证证据,并给出了分诊协议标准化的建议。
通过系统的文献检索,识别出59篇相关文章,并根据既定目标进行评估。
共识别并描述了12种分诊概念,这些概念根据基本原则进行分类。
就研究终点、所选观察单位和数据收集方式对验证的影响进行了讨论。此外,还讨论了系统容量过载的程度和动态性(这是大规模伤亡事件的特征)的影响。
没有足够的证据表明某一种分诊协议在所有方面都优于其他协议,并且德国尚未全面实施任何分诊协议。为了启动国家或地区层面朝着紧急医疗服务互操作性的趋同进程,已确定大规模伤亡分诊方法的统一核心标准模型是合适的。