Department of Emergency Medicine, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, postal address: No. 707, Sec. 3, Zhongyang Rd., Hualien City, Hualien County 970, Taiwan.
Department of Medical Research, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, postal address: No. 707, Sec. 3, Zhongyang Rd., Hualien City, Hualien County 970, Taiwan.
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Mar;53:99-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.12.037. Epub 2021 Dec 18.
Triage plays an essential role in emergency medical care. It is crucial to adopt appropriate triage in a mass casualty incident (MCI) when resources are limited. The simple triage and rapid treatment (START) protocol is commonly used worldwide; however, the effectiveness of the START protocol for emergency department (ED) triage is unclear. This study aimed to examine the accuracy of START for the ED triage of victims following a MCI.
We retrospectively reviewed the records of victims who presented to our ED during a MCI response after a train crash. The ED nurses applied the START protocol upon patient arrival, and we used a consensus-based standard to determine the outcome-based categories of these same patients. We compared the START protocol and outcome-based categories. In addition, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of START in terms of predicting surgery and ED disposition were determined.
This study enrolled 47 patients (predominantly women, 68.1%; median age: 39.0years). Most victims were triaged into the START minor category (61.7%) and discharged from the ED (68.1%). Twenty-nine patients had matched START and outcome-based categories, whereas 2 patients were over-triaged and 16 patients were under-triaged. Additionally, the START system had acceptable AUC and sensitivities for predicting surgery and ED disposition (AUC/sensitivity/specificity for surgery: 0.850/100%/69.1%; AUC/sensitivity/specificity for admission: 0.917/93.3%/87.5%; AUC/sensitivity/specificity for intensive care unit (ICU)/ED death: 0.994/100%/97.8%).
This study demonstrated poor agreement between START categories, as determined in the ED, and the consensus-based standard categories. However, the START protocol was acceptable in terms of identifying emergent patients (100% sensitivity for the immediate and deceased categories) and predicting ED disposition (surgery, admission, and ICU/ED mortality). Although START is not perfect, our findings suggest that it could be used for the ED triage of trauma-related MCI victims.
分诊在急救医疗中起着至关重要的作用。在资源有限的情况下,对大规模伤亡事件(MCI)进行适当的分诊至关重要。简单分诊和快速治疗(START)方案在全球范围内广泛使用;然而,START 方案在急诊科(ED)分诊中的效果尚不清楚。本研究旨在检验 START 方案在 MCI 后对 ED 分诊中受害者的准确性。
我们回顾性分析了在火车事故后 MCI 响应期间到我院 ED 就诊的受害者的记录。ED 护士在患者到达时应用 START 方案,我们使用基于共识的标准来确定这些患者的基于结果的类别。我们比较了 START 方案和基于结果的类别。此外,还确定了 START 在预测手术和 ED 处置方面的曲线下面积(AUC)、敏感性和特异性。
本研究共纳入 47 名患者(主要为女性,占 68.1%;中位数年龄:39.0 岁)。大多数受害者被分诊到 START 轻伤类别(61.7%)并从 ED 出院(68.1%)。29 名患者的 START 和基于结果的类别相匹配,而 2 名患者分诊过度,16 名患者分诊不足。此外,START 系统对预测手术和 ED 处置具有可接受的 AUC 和敏感性(手术的 AUC/敏感性/特异性:0.850/100%/69.1%;入院的 AUC/敏感性/特异性:0.917/93.3%/87.5%;ICU/ED 死亡的 AUC/敏感性/特异性:0.994/100%/97.8%)。
本研究表明,ED 中确定的 START 类别与基于共识的标准类别之间存在较差的一致性。然而,START 方案在识别紧急患者(即时和死亡类别的 100%敏感性)和预测 ED 处置(手术、入院和 ICU/ED 死亡率)方面是可以接受的。尽管 START 并不完美,但我们的研究结果表明,它可用于创伤相关 MCI 受害者的 ED 分诊。