In cases of mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), triage represents a fundamental tool for the management of and assistance to the wounded, which helps discriminate not only the priority of attention, but also the priority of referral to the most suitable center.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the capacity of different prehospital triage systems based on physiological parameters (Shock Index [SI], Glasgow-Age-Pressure Score [GAP], Revised Trauma Score [RTS], and National Early Warning Score 2 [NEWS2]) to predict early mortality (within 48 hours) from the index event for use in MCIs.

This was a longitudinal prospective observational multi-center study on patients who were attended by Advanced Life Support (ALS) units and transferred to the emergency department (ED) of their reference hospital. Collected were: demographic, physiological, and clinical variables; main diagnosis; and data on early mortality. The main outcome variable was mortality from any cause within 48 hours.

From April 1, 2018 through February 28, 2019, a total of 1,288 patients were included in this study. Of these, 262 (20.3%) participants required assistance for trauma and injuries by external agents. Early mortality within the first 48 hours due to any cause affected 69 patients (5.4%). The system with the best predictive capacity was the NEWS2 with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.891 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94); a sensitivity of 79.7% (95% CI, 68.8-87.5); and a specificity of 84.5% (95% CI, 82.4-86.4) for a cut-off point of nine points, with a positive likelihood ratio of 5.14 (95% CI, 4.31-6.14) and a negative predictive value of 98.7% (95% CI, 97.8-99.2).

Prehospital scores of the NEWS2 are easy to obtain and represent a reliable test, which make it an ideal system to help in the initial assessment of high-risk patients, and to determine their level of triage effectively and efficiently. The Prehospital Emergency Medical System (PhEMS) should evaluate the inclusion of the NEWS2 as a triage system, which is especially useful for the second triage (evacuation priority).

Mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) easily overwhelm a health care facility’s human and material resources through the extraordinary influx of casualties. Efficient and accurate triage of incoming casualties is a critical step in the hospital disaster response.

Traditionally, triage during MCIs has been manually performed using paper cards. This study investigated the use of electronic Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) triage as compared to the manual method.

This observational, crossover study was performed during a live MCI simulation at an urban, Canadian, Level 1 trauma center on May 26, 2016. Health care providers (two medical doctors [MDs], two paramedics [PMs], and two registered nurses [RNs]) each triaged a total of 30 simulated patients - 15 by manual (paper-based) and 15 by electronic (computer-based) START triage. Accuracy of triage categories and time of triage were analyzed. Post-simulation, patients and participating health care providers also completed a feedback form.

There was no difference in accuracy of triage between the electronic and manual methods overall, 83% and 80% (P=1.0), between providers or between triage categories. On average, triage time using the manual method was estimated to be 8.4 seconds faster (P<.001) for PMs; and while small differences in triage times were observed for MDs and RNs, they were not significant. Data from the participant feedback survey showed that the electronic method was preferred by most health care providers. Patients had no preference for either method. However, patients perceived the computer-based method as “less personal” than the manual triage method, but they also perceived the former as “better organized.”

Hospital-based electronic START triage had the same accuracy as hospital-based manual START triage, regardless of triage provider type or acuity of patient presentations. Time of triage results suggest that speed may be related to provider familiarity with a modality rather than the modality itself. Finally, according to patient and provider perceptions, electronic triage is a feasible modality for hospital triage of mass casualties. Further studies are required to assess the performance of electronic hospital triage, in the context of a rapid surge of patients, and should consider additional efficiencies built in to electronic triage systems. This study presents a framework for assessing the accuracy, triage time, and feasibility of digital technologies in live simulation training or actual MCIs.

BolducC, MaghrabyN, FokP, LuongTM, HomierV. Comparison of Electronic Versus Manual Mass-Casualty Incident Triage. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):273–278.

The evaluation tool was first derived from the formerly Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies’ (CBHA; United Kingdom), now “Start Network’s,” Core Humanitarian Competency Framework and formatted in an electronic data capture tool that allowed for offline evaluation. During a 3-day humanitarian simulation event, participants in teams of eight to 10 were evaluated individually at multiple injects by trained evaluators. Participants were assessed on five competencies and a global rating scale. Participants evaluated both themselves and their team members using the same tool at the end of the simulation exercise (SimEx).

All participants (63) were evaluated. A total of 1,008 individual evaluations were completed. There were 90 (9.0%) missing evaluations. All 63 participants also evaluated themselves and each of their teammates using the same tool. Self-evaluation scores were significantly lower than peer-evaluations, which were significantly lower than evaluators’ assessments. Participants with a medical degree, and those with humanitarian work experience of one month or more, scored significantly higher on all competencies assessed by evaluators compared to other participants. Participants with prior humanitarian experience scored higher on competencies regarding operating safely and working effectively as a team member.

This study presents a novel electronic evaluation tool to assess individual performance in five of six globally recognized humanitarian competency domains in a 3-day humanitarian SimEx. The evaluation tool provides a standardized approach to the assessment of humanitarian competencies that cannot be evaluated through knowledge-based testing in a classroom setting. When combined with testing knowledge-based competencies, this presents an approach to a comprehensive competency-based assessment that provides an objective measurement of competency with respect to the competencies listed in the Framework. There is an opportunity to advance the use of this tool in future humanitarian training exercises and potentially in real time, in the field. This could impact the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian operations.

EvansAB, HulmeJM, NugusP, CranmerHH, CoutuM, JohnsonK. An Electronic Competency-Based Evaluation Tool for Assessing Humanitarian Competencies in a Simulated Exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(3):253–260.

Surge capacity, or the ability to manage an extraordinary volume of patients, is fundamental for hospital management of mass-casualty incidents. However, quantification of surge capacity is difficult and no universal standard for its measurement has emerged, nor has a standardized statistical method been advocated. As mass-casualty incidents are rare, simulation may represent a viable alternative to measure surge capacity.

The objective of the current study was to develop a statistical method for the quantification of surge capacity using a combination of computer simulation and simple process-control statistical tools. Length-of-stay (LOS) and patient volume (PV) were used as metrics. The use of this method was then demonstrated on a subsequent computer simulation of an emergency department (ED) response to a mass-casualty incident.

In the derivation phase, 357 participants in five countries performed 62 computer simulations of an ED response to a mass-casualty incident. Benchmarks for ED response were derived from these simulations, including LOS and PV metrics for triage, bed assignment, physician assessment, and disposition. In the application phase, 13 students of the European Master in Disaster Medicine (EMDM) program completed the same simulation scenario, and the results were compared to the standards obtained in the derivation phase.

Patient-volume metrics included number of patients to be triaged, assigned to rooms, assessed by a physician, and disposed. Length-of-stay metrics included median time to triage, room assignment, physician assessment, and disposition. Simple graphical methods were used to compare the application phase group to the derived benchmarks using process-control statistical tools. The group in the application phase failed to meet the indicated standard for LOS from admission to disposition decision.

This study demonstrates how simulation software can be used to derive values for objective benchmarks of ED surge capacity using PV and LOS metrics. These objective metrics can then be applied to other simulation groups using simple graphical process-control tools to provide a numeric measure of surge capacity. Repeated use in simulations of actual EDs may represent a potential means of objectively quantifying disaster management surge capacity. It is hoped that the described statistical method, which is simple and reusable, will be useful for investigators in this field to apply to their own research.

FrancJM, IngrassiaPL, VerdeM, ColomboD, Della CorteF. A Simple Graphical Method for Quantification of Disaster Management Surge Capacity Using Computer Simulation and Process-control Tools. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(1):1-7.