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.

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.

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.

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)

The objective of this study was to compare the operational viability and performance of the Sacco Triage Method (STM) to that of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) protocol.

Following a 20-minute review of the mandated START protocol and a 20-minute training session of STM, parallel disaster exercises were conducted. Emergency responded used START in the morning and STM in the afternoon on a simulated building collapse involving 99 victims. Data were collected on the accuracy of patient assessment (START) and scoring (STM), the timeliness in clearing the scene, and me prioritization of patients leaving the scene.

The STM scoring was more accurate than START assessments at 91.7% and 71.0%, respectively. The time to clear the scene was 16% less using STM than START (53 minutes and 63 minutes, respectively). The 13 most seriously injured patients left the scene in the first seven ambulances using STM; while only two of the 13 most seriously injured patients left the scene in the first 13 ambulances under START, and the three most serious patients were transported by bus. Surveyed providers preferred START to STM and believed it to be more accurate, faster, and better able to identify the most serious patients.

Emergency responders did not implement START successfully Despite refresher training and 12 years of using START as their statewide protocol, tagging was inaccurate and patient prioritization was poor. In comparison, STM was implemented after 20 minutes of introductory training, was shown to be operationally viable, and outperformed START in all objectives.

The Sacco Triage Method (STM) is a mathematical model of resource-constrained triage. The objective of this presentation is to apply STM-Age, an age-augmented version of STM, to blunt trauma victims and compare it to Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) and START-like protocols.

The objective of STM is to maximize the number of expected survivors given constraints on the timing and availability of resources. The STM incorporates estimates of time-dependent victim survival probabilities based on an initial assessment and expected deteriorations.

For the STM-Age application, an “RPM-Age” score (based on respiratory rate, pulse rate, best motor response, and coded age) was used to estimate survival probability. Logistic function-generated survival probability estimates for RPM-Age values were determined from 76,444 patients with blunt injuries from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study. The Delphi Method provided expert consensus on victim deterioration rates, and the model was solved using linear programming.

The STM-Age was compared to START and START-like methods with respect to process and to outcome, as measured by expected number of survivors, in simulated resource-constrained casualty incidents.

The RPM-Age was a more accurate predictor of survivability for blunt trauma than RPM, as measured by calibration and discrimination statistics. In simulations, STM-Age exhibited substantially more expected survivors than START and START-like protocols.

Resource-constrained triage is modeled precisely as an evidence-based, outcome-driven method (STM-Age) that maximizes expected survivors in consideration of resources. The STM-Age offers life-saving and operational advantages over current methods.

Management of mass-casualty incidents should optimize outcomes by appropriate prehospital care, and patient triage to the most capably facilities. The number of patients, the nature of injuries, transportation needs, distances, and hospital capabilities and availabilities are all factors to be considered. Patient maldistributions such as overwhelming individual facilities, or transport to facilities incapable of providing appropriate care should be avoided. This report is a critical view of the application of the START triage nomenclature in the prehospital arena following a train crash in Los Angeles County on 26 January 2005.

A scheduled debriefing was held with the major fire and emergency medical services responders, Medical Alert Center staff, and hospitals to assess and review the response to the incident. Site visits were made to all of the hospitals involved. Follow-up questions were directed to emergency department staff that were on duty during the day of the incident.

The five Level-I Trauma Centers responded to the poll with the capacity to receive a total of 12 “Immediate” patients, 2.4 patients per center, the eight Level-II Trauma Centers responded with capacity to receive 17 “Immediate” patients, two patients per center, while the 25 closest community hospitals offered to accept 75 “Immediate” patients, three patients per hospital. These community hospitals were typically about one-half of the size of the trauma centers (average 287 beds versus 548, average 8.7 operating rooms versus 16.6). Twenty-six patients were transported to a community hospital >15 miles from the scene, while eight closer community hospitals did not receive any patients.

The debriefing summary of this incident concluded that there were no consistently used criteria to decide ultimate destination for “Immediates”, and that they were distributed about equally between community hospitals and trauma centers.