The BCD Triage Sieve outperforms all existing major incident triage tools: Comparative analysis using the UK national trauma registry population.
BCD Triage Sieve
Careflight
Disaster
Injury Severity Score
JumpSTART
Life-saving intervention
MIMMS
MPTT-24
MSTART
Major incident
Major trauma
Mass casualty
Military medicine
Prehospital medicine
RAMP
START
Triage
Journal
EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
entrez:
26
7
2021
pubmed:
27
7
2021
medline:
27
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Natural disasters, conflict, and terrorism are major global causes of death and disability. Central to the healthcare response is triage, vital to ensure the right care is provided to the right patient at the right time. The ideal triage tool has high sensitivity for the highest priority (P1) patients with acceptably low over-triage. This study compared the performance of major incident triage tools in predicting P1 casualty status in adults in the prospective UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry. TARN patients aged 16+ years (January 2008-December 2017) were included. Ten existing triage tools were applied using patients' first recorded pre-hospital physiology. Patients were subsequently assigned triage categories (P1, P2, P3, Expectant or Dead) based on pre-defined, intervention-based criteria. Tool performance was assessed by comparing tool-predicted and intervention-based priority status. 195,709 patients were included; mortality was 7·0% (n=13,601); median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 9 (IQR 9-17); 97·1% sustained blunt injuries. 22,144 (11·3%) patients fulfilled intervention-based criteria for P1 status, exhibiting higher mortality (12·8% The BCD Triage Sieve performed best in this nationally representative population; we recommend it supersede the NARU Triage Sieve as the UK primary major incident triage tool. Validated triage category definitions are recommended for appraising future major incidents. This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre. GVG also acknowledges support from the MRC Heath Data Research UK (HDRUK/CFC/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or the Ministry of Defence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Natural disasters, conflict, and terrorism are major global causes of death and disability. Central to the healthcare response is triage, vital to ensure the right care is provided to the right patient at the right time. The ideal triage tool has high sensitivity for the highest priority (P1) patients with acceptably low over-triage. This study compared the performance of major incident triage tools in predicting P1 casualty status in adults in the prospective UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry.
METHODS
METHODS
TARN patients aged 16+ years (January 2008-December 2017) were included. Ten existing triage tools were applied using patients' first recorded pre-hospital physiology. Patients were subsequently assigned triage categories (P1, P2, P3, Expectant or Dead) based on pre-defined, intervention-based criteria. Tool performance was assessed by comparing tool-predicted and intervention-based priority status.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
195,709 patients were included; mortality was 7·0% (n=13,601); median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 9 (IQR 9-17); 97·1% sustained blunt injuries. 22,144 (11·3%) patients fulfilled intervention-based criteria for P1 status, exhibiting higher mortality (12·8%
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
The BCD Triage Sieve performed best in this nationally representative population; we recommend it supersede the NARU Triage Sieve as the UK primary major incident triage tool. Validated triage category definitions are recommended for appraising future major incidents.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre. GVG also acknowledges support from the MRC Heath Data Research UK (HDRUK/CFC/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or the Ministry of Defence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34308306
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100888
pii: S2589-5370(21)00168-1
pmc: PMC8257989
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100888Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K00414X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors confirm that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
BMJ. 2017 Oct 25;359:j4765
pubmed: 29070605
Ann Surg. 1988 Nov;208(5):569-76
pubmed: 3056287
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Jun;61(6):668-676.e7
pubmed: 23465555
Injury. 2013 Aug;44(8):1061-7
pubmed: 23683832
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Sep;54(3):424-30, 430.e1
pubmed: 19195739
Crit Care. 2016 Nov 8;20(1):362
pubmed: 27825363
J R Army Med Corps. 1999 Jun;145(2):55-9
pubmed: 10420339
J R Army Med Corps. 2018 May;164(2):103-106
pubmed: 29055894
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015 Apr-Jun;19(2):267-71
pubmed: 25290529
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014 Aug 28;22:50
pubmed: 25214310
Ann Emerg Med. 1990 Dec;19(12):1396-400
pubmed: 2240752
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Nov;38(5):541-8
pubmed: 11679866
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008 Sep;2 Suppl 1:S25-34
pubmed: 18769263
Lancet. 2006 Dec 23;368(9554):2219-25
pubmed: 17189033
Anesth Analg. 2009 Aug;109(2):489-93
pubmed: 19608824
Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386(10012):2535-8
pubmed: 26628327
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Aug;44(2):108-13
pubmed: 15278081
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):673-4
pubmed: 10987771
EClinicalMedicine. 2018 Aug 05;2-3:13-21
pubmed: 31193723
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008 Jan-Feb;23(1):3-8
pubmed: 18491654