• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

测试START分诊协议:它能否提高非医疗人员在灾难和大规模伤亡事件中更好地对患者进行分诊的能力?

Testing the START Triage Protocol: Can It Improve the Ability of Nonmedical Personnel to Better Triage Patients During Disasters and Mass Casualties Incidents ?

作者信息

Badiali Stefano, Giugni Aimone, Marcis Lucia

机构信息

1Bologna NHS Emergency Department,Bologna,Italy.

2Italian Red Cross Bologna Committee - Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute of Bologna,Bologna,Italy.

出版信息

Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017 Jun;11(3):305-309. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2016.151. Epub 2017 Jan 9.

DOI:10.1017/dmp.2016.151
PMID:28065200
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

START (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment) triage is a tool that is available even to nonmedical rescue personnel in case of a disaster or mass casualty incident (MCI). In Italy, no data are available on whether application of the START protocol could improve patient outcomes during a disaster or MCI. We aimed to address whether "last-minute" START training of nonmedical personnel during a disaster or MCI would result in more effective triage of patients.

METHODS

In this case-control study, 400 nonmedical ambulance crew members were randomly assigned to a non-START or a START group (200 per group). The START group received last-minute START training. Each group examined 6000 patients, obtained from the Emergo Train System (ETS Italy, Bologna, Italy) victims database, and assigned patients a triage code (black-red-yellow-green) along with a reason for the assignment. Each rescuer triaged 30 patients within a 30-minute time frame. Results were analyzed according to Fisher's exact test for a P value<0.01. Under- and over-triage ratios were analyzed as well.

RESULTS

The START group completed the evaluations in 15 minutes, whereas the non-START group took 30 minutes. The START group correctly triaged 94.2% of their patients, as opposed to 59.83% of the non-START group (P<0.01). Under- and over-triage were, respectively, 2.73% and 3.08% for the START group versus 13.67% and 26.5% for the non-START group. The non-START group had 458 "preventable deaths" on 6000 cases because of incorrect triage, whereas the START group had 91.

CONCLUSIONS

Even a "last-minute" training on the START triage protocol allows nonmedical personnel to better identify and triage the victims of a disaster or MCI, resulting in more effective and efficient medical intervention. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:305-309).

摘要

目的

START(简单分诊与快速治疗)分诊是一种即使在灾难或大规模伤亡事件(MCI)中,非医疗救援人员也可使用的工具。在意大利,尚无关于应用START方案是否能在灾难或MCI期间改善患者预后的数据。我们旨在探讨在灾难或MCI期间对非医疗人员进行“最后一刻”的START培训是否会使患者分诊更有效。

方法

在这项病例对照研究中,400名非医疗救护人员被随机分为非START组或START组(每组200人)。START组接受了最后一刻的START培训。每组检查从Emergo Train System(意大利博洛尼亚的ETS Italy)受害者数据库中获取的6000名患者,并为患者分配一个分诊代码(黑色-红色-黄色-绿色)以及分配的理由。每位救援人员在30分钟的时间内对30名患者进行分诊。根据Fisher精确检验分析结果,P值<0.01。还分析了分诊不足和过度分诊的比例。

结果

START组在15分钟内完成评估,而非START组则用时30分钟。START组正确分诊了94.2%的患者,而非START组为59.83%(P<0.01)。START组的分诊不足和过度分诊分别为2.73%和3.08%,而非START组分别为13.67%和26.5%。非START组在6000例病例中有458例因分诊错误导致“可预防死亡”,而START组为91例。

结论

即使是对START分诊方案进行“最后一刻”培训,也能使非医疗人员更好地识别和分诊灾难或MCI的受害者,从而实现更有效和高效的医疗干预。(《灾难医学与公共卫生防范》。2017;11:305 - 309)

相似文献

1
Testing the START Triage Protocol: Can It Improve the Ability of Nonmedical Personnel to Better Triage Patients During Disasters and Mass Casualties Incidents ?测试START分诊协议:它能否提高非医疗人员在灾难和大规模伤亡事件中更好地对患者进行分诊的能力?
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017 Jun;11(3):305-309. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2016.151. Epub 2017 Jan 9.
2
First Responder Accuracy Using SALT during Mass-casualty Incident Simulation.在大规模伤亡事件模拟中使用SALT时急救人员的准确性。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016 Apr;31(2):150-4. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X16000091. Epub 2016 Feb 9.
3
A modified simple triage and rapid treatment algorithm from the New York City (USA) Fire Department.美国纽约市消防局的一种改良版简单分诊与快速治疗算法。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015 Apr;30(2):199-204. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X14001447. Epub 2015 Feb 17.
4
Comparison of Electronic Versus Manual Mass-Casualty Incident Triage.电子与人工批量伤亡事件分诊的比较
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018 Jun;33(3):273-278. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X1800033X. Epub 2018 Apr 17.
5
Triage performance of first-year medical students using a multiple-casualty scenario, paper exercise.运用多伤员场景、纸质练习对一年级医学生进行分诊表现评估。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):239-45. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00008104.
6
Comparison of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology-Assisted Triage versus Standard Practice in Triaging Casualties by Paramedic Students in a Mass-Casualty Incident Scenario.在大规模伤亡事件场景中,护理专业学生使用无人机技术辅助分诊与标准做法在伤亡人员分诊方面的比较。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018 Aug;33(4):375-380. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X18000559. Epub 2018 Jul 13.
7
Randomized trial comparing two mass casualty triage systems (JumpSTART versus SALT) in a pediatric simulated mass casualty event.在儿科模拟大规模伤亡事件中比较两种大规模伤亡分诊系统(JumpSTART与SALT)的随机试验。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014 Jul-Sep;18(3):417-23. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2014.882997. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
8
First Responder Accuracy Using SALT after Brief Initial Training.经过简短初始培训后使用SALT的急救人员准确性。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015 Oct;30(5):447-51. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X15004975.
9
Comparison of START and SALT triage methodologies to reference standard definitions and to a field mass casualty simulation.START和SALT分诊方法与参考标准定义及现场大规模伤亡模拟的比较。
Am J Disaster Med. 2017 Winter;12(1):27-33. doi: 10.5055/ajdm.2017.0255.
10
The Use of Field Triage in Disaster and Mass Casualty Incidents: A Survey of Current Practices by EMS Personnel.灾难和大规模伤亡事件中的现场分诊应用:急救医疗服务人员当前实践的调查
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018 Jul-Aug;22(4):520-526. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2017.1419323. Epub 2018 Feb 9.

引用本文的文献

1
A Qualitative Assessment of Studies Evaluating the Classification Accuracy of Personnel Using START in Disaster Triage: A Scoping Review.运用 START 对灾难分诊人员分类准确性进行评估的研究的定性评估:范围综述。
Front Public Health. 2022 Feb 24;10:676704. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.676704. eCollection 2022.
2
A translational triage research development tool: standardizing prehospital triage decision-making systems in mass casualty incidents.一种转化分诊研究开发工具:标准化大规模伤亡事件中的院前分诊决策系统。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021 Aug 17;29(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s13049-021-00932-z.
3
Defining major trauma: a Delphi study.
定义严重创伤:德尔菲研究。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021 May 10;29(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s13049-021-00870-w.
4
Sort, Assess, Life-Saving Intervention, Triage With Drone Assistance in Mass Casualty Simulation: Analysis of Educational Efficacy.在大规模伤亡模拟中借助无人机协助进行分类、评估、救生干预及分诊:教育效果分析
Cureus. 2020 Sep 21;12(9):e10572. doi: 10.7759/cureus.10572.
5
The Impact of Experience, Length of Service, and Workplace Preparedness in Physicians' Readiness in the Response to Disasters.经验、服务年限和工作场所准备情况对医生应对灾难的准备程度的影响。
J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 16;9(10):3328. doi: 10.3390/jcm9103328.