Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020 Jul-Aug;24(4):515-524. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2019.1641579. Epub 2019 Jul 31.
To use a previously published criterion standard to compare the accuracy of 4 different mass casualty triage systems (Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport [SALT], Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment [START], Triage Sieve, and CareFlight) when used in an emergency department-based adult population. We performed a prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of adults aged 18years or older presenting to a single tertiary care hospital emergency department. A co-investigator with prior emergency medical services (EMS) experience observed each subject's initial triage in the emergency department and recorded all data points necessary to assign a triage category using each of the 4 mass casualty triage systems being studied. Subjects' medical records were reviewed after their discharge from the hospital to assign the "correct" triage category using the criterion standard. The 4 mass casualty triage system assignments were then compared to the "correct" assignment. Descriptive statistics were used to compare accuracy and over- and under-triage rates for each triage system. A total of 125 subjects were included in the study. Of those, 53% were male and 59% were transported by private vehicle. When compared to the criterion standard definitions, SALT was found to have the highest accuracy rate (52%; 95% CI 43-60) compared to START (36%; 95% CI 28-44), CareFlight (36%; 95% CI 28-44), and TriageSieve (37%; 95% CI 28-45). SALT also had the lowest under-triage rate (26%; 95% CI 19-34) compared to START (57%; 95% CI 48-66), CareFlight (58%; 95% CI 49-66), and TriageSieve (58%; 95% CI 49-66). SALT had the highest over-triage rate (22%; 95% CI 14-29) compared to START (7%; 95% CI 3-12), CareFlight (6%; 95% CI 2-11) and TriageSieve (6%; 95% CI 2-11). We found that SALT triage most often correctly triaged adult emergency department patients when compared to a previously published criterion standard. While there are no target under- and over-triage rates that have been published for mass casualty triage, all 4 systems had relatively high rates of under-triage.
为了比较 4 种不同批量伤员分诊系统(Sort、Assess、Lifesaving Interventions、Treatment/Transport[SALT]、Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment[START]、Triage Sieve 和 CareFlight)在基于急诊科的成年人群中的准确性,我们使用先前发表的标准来进行比较。我们对一家三级保健医院急诊科的成年患者进行了一项前瞻性、观察性的便利样本研究。一位具有先前紧急医疗服务(EMS)经验的共同研究者观察了每位患者在急诊科的初步分诊,并记录了使用正在研究的 4 种批量伤员分诊系统中的每一种进行分诊分类所需的所有数据点。在患者从医院出院后,对其病历进行了审查,以使用标准对“正确”的分诊类别进行分配。然后将 4 种批量伤员分诊系统的分配与“正确”的分配进行比较。使用描述性统计来比较每种分诊系统的准确性和过度分诊与不足分诊的比率。共纳入 125 例患者。其中,53%为男性,59%由私家车运送。与标准定义相比,SALT 的准确率最高(52%;95%CI 43-60),其次是 START(36%;95%CI 28-44)、CareFlight(36%;95%CI 28-44)和 TriageSieve(37%;95%CI 28-45)。SALT 的不足分诊率最低(26%;95%CI 19-34),其次是 START(57%;95%CI 48-66)、CareFlight(58%;95%CI 49-66)和 TriageSieve(58%;95%CI 49-66)。SALT 的过度分诊率最高(22%;95%CI 14-29),其次是 START(7%;95%CI 3-12)、CareFlight(6%;95%CI 2-11)和 TriageSieve(6%;95%CI 2-11)。我们发现,与先前发表的标准相比,SALT 分诊最常正确分诊成年急诊科患者。虽然批量伤员分诊没有公布的目标过度分诊和不足分诊率,但所有 4 种系统的不足分诊率都相对较高。