Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:25:18.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction of Pediatric Physiological and Anatomical Triage Score in Mass-Casualty Incident

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2018

Chiaki Toida*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
Takashi Muguruma
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
Takeru Abe
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
Mafumi Shinohara
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
Masayasu Gakumazawa
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
Naoki Yogo
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
Aya Shirasawa
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
Naoto Morimura
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
*
Correspondence: Chiaki Toida, MDDepartment of Emergency MedicineYokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine 4-57 Urafune-cho Minami-ku Yokohama, 232-0024 Japan E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Background

Triage has an important role in providing suitable care to the largest number of casualties in a disaster setting, but there are no secondary triage methods suitable for children. This study developed a new secondary triage method named the Pediatric Physiological and Anatomical Triage Score (PPATS) and compared its accuracy with current triage methods.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients under 16 years old transferred to an emergency center from 2014 to 2016 was performed. The PPATS categorized the patients, defined the intensive care unit (ICU)-indicated patients if the category was highest, and compared the accuracy of prediction of ICU-indicated patients among PPATS, Physiological and Anatomical Triage (PAT), and Triage Revised Trauma Score (TRTS).

Results

Among 137 patients, 24 (17.5%) were admitted to ICU. The median PPATS score of these patients was significantly higher than that of patients not admitted to ICU (11 [IQR: 9-13] versus three [IQR: 2-4]; P<.001). The optimal cut-off value of the PPTAS was six, yielding a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%, 86.7%, 60.5%, and 99.0%. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was larger for PPTAS than for PAT or TRTS (0.95 [95% CI, 0.87-1.00] versus 0.65 [95% CI, 0.58-0.72]; P<.001 and 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.89]; P=.003, respectively). Regression analysis showed a significant association between the PPATS and the predicted mortality rate (r2=0.139; P<.001), ventilation time (r2=0.320; P<.001), ICU stay (r2=0.362; P<.001), and hospital stay (r2=0.308; P<.001).

Conclusions

The accuracy of PPATS was superior to other methods for secondary triage of children.

ToidaC, MugurumaT, AbeT, ShinoharaM, GakumazawaM, YogoN, ShirasawaA, MorimuraN. Introduction of Pediatric Physiological and Anatomical Triage Score in Mass-Casualty Incident. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(2):147–152.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest/funding: This work was funded by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K17064 [Grant-in-Aid for Young scientists (B)]. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Smith, W. Triage in mass casualty situations. CME. 2012;30(11):413-415.Google Scholar
2. Wallis, LA, Carley, S. Comparison of pediatric major incident primary triage tools. Emerg Med J. 2006;23(6):475-478.Google Scholar
3. Kaziel, J, Meckler, G, Brown, L, et al. Barriers to pediatric disaster triage: a qualitative investing. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(2):279-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gausche-Hill, M. Pediatric disaster preparedness: are we really prepared? J Trauma. 2009;67(2 Suppl):s73-76.Google Scholar
5. Fleming, S, Thompson, M, Stevens, R, et al. Normal ranges of heart rate and respiratory rate in children from birth to 18 years of age: a systematic review of observational studies. Lancet. 2011;377(9770):1011-1018.Google Scholar
6. American Heart Association. Pears Provider Manual: Pediatric Emergency Assessment, Recognition, and Stabilization. Dallas, Texas USA: American Heart Association; 2012.Google Scholar
7. Garner, A, Lee, A, Harrison, K, et al. Comparative analysis of multiple-casualty incident triage algorithms. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38(5):541-548.Google Scholar
8. Aitken, P, FitzGerald, G. Disaster triage: evidence, consistency, and standard practice. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(3):222-224.Google Scholar
9. Donofrio, JJ, Kaji, AH, Claudius, IA, et al. Development of a pediatric mass casualty triage algorithm validation tool. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;20(3):343-353.Google Scholar
10. Advanced Life Support Group. Major Incident Medical Management and Support: The Practical Approach at the Scene. 3rd edition. Hoboken, New Jersey USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Toida et al. supplementary material

Toida et al. supplementary material 1

Download Toida et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 5.9 MB