Sichtungskonzepte bei Massenanfällen von Verletzten und Erkrankten

Validation of secondary triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents : A simulation-based study-English version

BACKGROUND

In the event of a mass casualty incident (MCI), the situation-related shortage of medical resources does not end when the patients are transported from the scene of the incident. Consequently, an initial triage is required in the receiving hospitals. In the first step, the aim of this study was to create a reference patient vignette set with defined triage categories. This allowed a computer-aided evaluation of the diagnostic quality of triage algorithms for MCI situations in the second step.

METHODS

A total of 250 case vignettes validated in practice were entered into a multistage evaluation process by initially 6 and later 36 triage experts. This algorithm-independent expert evaluation of all vignettes-served as the gold standard for analyzing the diagnostic quality of the following triage algorithms: Manchester triage system (MTS module MCI), emergency severity index (ESI), Berlin triage algorithm (BER), the prehospital algorithms PRIOR and mSTaRT, and two project algorithms from a cooperation between the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan-intrahospital Jordanian-German project algorithm (JorD) and prehospital triage algorithm (PETRA). Each patient vignette underwent computerized triage through all specified algorithms to obtain comparative test quality outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the original 250 vignettes, a triage reference database of 210 patient vignettes was validated independently of the algorithms. These formed the gold standard for comparison of the triage algorithms analyzed. Sensitivities for intrahospital detection of patients in triage category T1 ranged from 1.0 (BER, JorD, PRIOR) to 0.57 (MCI module MTS). Specificities ranged from 0.99 (MTS and PETRA) to 0.67 (PRIOR). Considering Youden's index, BER (0.89) and JorD (0.88) had the best overall performance for detecting patients in triage category T1. Overtriage was most likely with PRIOR, and undertriage with the MCI module of MTS. Up to a decision for category T1, the algorithms require the following numbers of steps given as the median and interquartile range (IQR): ESI 1 (1-2), JorD 1 (1-4), PRIOR 3 (2-4), BER 3 (2-6), mSTaRT 3 (3-5), MTS 4 (4-5) and PETRA 6 (6-8). For the T2 and T3 categories the number of steps until a decision and the test quality of the algorithms are positively interrelated.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, transferability of preclinical algorithm-based primary triage results to clinical algorithm-based secondary triage results was demonstrated. The highest diagnostic quality for secondary triage was provided by the Berlin triage algorithm, followed by the Jordanian-German project algorithm for hospitals, which, however, also require the most algorithm steps until a decision.

[Validation of secondary triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents-A simulation-based study-German version]

BACKGROUND

In the event of a mass casualty incident (MCI), the situation-related shortage of medical resources does not end when the patients are transported from the scene of the incident. Consequently, an initial triage is required in the receiving hospitals. In the first step, the aim of this study was to create a reference patient vignette set with defined triage categories. This allowed a computer-aided evaluation of the diagnostic quality of triage algorithms for MCI situations in the second step.

METHODS

A total of 250 case vignettes validated in practice were entered into a multistage evaluation process by initially 6 and later 36 triage experts. This algorithm-independent expert evaluation of all vignettes-served as the gold standard for analyzing the diagnostic quality of the following triage algorithms: Manchester triage system (MTS module MCI), emergency severity index (ESI), Berlin triage algorithm (BER), the prehospital algorithms PRIOR and mSTaRT, and two project algorithms from a cooperation between the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan-intrahospital Jordanian-German project algorithm (JorD) and prehospital triage algorithm (PETRA). Each patient vignette underwent computerized triage through all specified algorithms to obtain comparative test quality outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the original 250 vignettes, a triage reference database of 210 patient vignettes was validated independently of the algorithms. These formed the gold standard for comparison of the triage algorithms analyzed. Sensitivities for intrahospital detection of patients in triage category T1 ranged from 1.0 (BER, JorD, PRIOR) to 0.57 (MCI module MTS). Specificities ranged from 0.99 (MTS and PETRA) to 0.67 (PRIOR). Considering Youden's index, BER (0.89) and JorD (0.88) had the best overall performance for detecting patients in triage category T1. Overtriage was most likely with PRIOR, and undertriage with the MCI module of MTS. Up to a decision for category T1, the algorithms require the following numbers of steps given as the median and interquartile range (IQR): ESI 1 (1-2), JorD 1 (1-4), PRIOR 3 (2-4), BER 3 (2-6), mSTaRT 3 (3-5), MTS 4 (4-5) and PETRA 6 (6-8). For the T2 and T3 categories the number of steps until a decision and the test quality of the algorithms are positively interrelated.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, transferability of preclinical algorithm-based primary triage results to clinical algorithm-based secondary triage results was demonstrated. The highest diagnostic quality for secondary triage was provided by the Berlin triage algorithm, followed by the Jordanian-German project algorithm for hospitals, which, however, also require the most algorithm steps until a decision.

[Risk Factors for COVID-19 Mortality]

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world significantly within the last two years and has put a major burden on health care systems worldwide. Due to the imbalance between the number of patients requiring treatment and the shortage of necessary healthcare resources, a new mode of triage had to be established. The allocation of resources and definition of treatment priorities could be supported by taking the actual short-term mortality risk of patients with COVID-19 into account. We therefore analyzed the current literature for criteria to predict mortality in COVID-19.

Accuracy of prehospital triage systems for mass casualty incidents in trauma register studies - A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

BACKGROUND

Prioritising patients in mass casualty incidents (MCI) can be extremely difficult. Therefore, triage systems are important in every emergency medical service. This study reviews the accuracy of primary triage systems for MCI in trauma register studies.

METHODS

We registered a protocol at PROSPERO ID: CRD42018115438. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinical Trials, Google Scholar, and reference lists for eligible studies. We included studies that both examined a primary triage system for MCI in trauma registers and provided sensitivity and specificity for critically injured vs non-critically injured as results. We excluded studies that used paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear MCIs populations or triage systems. Finally, we calculated intra-study relative sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio for each triage system.

RESULTS

Triage Sieve (TS) significantly underperformed in relative diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) when compared to START and CareFlight (CF) (START vs TS: 19.85 vs 13.23 (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 23.72 vs 12.83 (p<0.0001)). There was no significant difference in DOR between TS and Military Sieve (MS) (p<0.710). Compared to START, MS and CF TS had significantly higher relative specificity (START vs TS: 93.6% vs 96.1% (p=0.047)│CF vs TS: 96% vs 95.3% (p=0.0006)│MS vs TS: 94% vs 88.3% (p=0.0002)) and lower relative sensitivity (START vs TS: 57.8% vs 34.8% (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 53.9% vs 34.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs TS: 51.9% vs 35.2% p<0.0001)). CF had significantly better relative DOR than START (CF vs START: 23.56 vs 27.79 (p=0.043)). MS had significantly better relative sensitivity than CF and START (MS vs CF: 49.5% vs 38.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs START: 49.4% vs 43.9% (p=0.01)). In contrast, CF had significantly better relative specificity than MS (MS vs CF: 91.3% vs 93.3% (p<0.0001)). The remaining comparisons did not yield any significant differences.

CONCLUSION

As the included studies were at risk of bias and had heterogenic characteristics, our results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, our results point towards inferior accuracy of Triage Sieve compared to START and CareFlight, and less firmly point towards superior accuracy of Military Sieve compared to START, CareFlight and Triage Sieve.

Einfluss der Reihenfolge von Items auf die diagnostische Qualität von Vorsichtungsalgorithmen hinsichtlich der Vergabe der Sichtungskategorie I

Hintergrund

Großschadenslagen stellen den Rettungsdienst vor die Herausforderung, vielen Patienten mit begrenzten Ressourcen das Überleben zu sichern. Um hier eine Fehlverteilung von Ressourcen zu verhindern, ist eine genaue Vorsichtung essenziell. Aktuelle Studien zeigen, dass bei den verwendeten Vorsichtungsalgorithmen weiterhin Verbesserungsbedarf besteht.

Ziel der Arbeit

In dieser Arbeit untersuchten wir, welchen Einfluss eine veränderte Reihenfolge der Abfragen/Items auf die Qualität der Vorsichtungsalgorithmen hat.

Material und Methoden

Wir verwendeten eine Datenbank von 492 Luftrettungseinsätzen. Allen Patienten wurde durch eine Gruppe von Notärzten eine Referenzsichtungskategorie (SK) vergeben. Die Vorsichtungsalgorithmen mSTaRT, ASAV und PRIOR wurden in Excel-Befehle übersetzt und die SK für jeden Patienten berechnet. Anschließend rotierte die Reihenfolge der Items. Die berechneten SK wurden hinsichtlich Sensitivität, Spezifität, Unter‑/Übertriage und Youden-Index für die SK I (rot) ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse

mSTaRT zeigte keinerlei Veränderung der Qualität. Die Originalvariante von ASAV erreichte die beste Performance. Eine Rotation der Items führte zu einer Zunahme der Übertriage um 15 % bei sinkender Qualität. PRIOR profitierte am meisten von den Rotationen, wobei insbesondere die Variante mit einer initialen Abfrage der Gehfähigkeit zu einer Abnahme der Übertriage von 22 % führte. Dies führte zur stärksten Verbesserung des Youden-Index (+0,12).

Diskussion

Wir konnten demonstrieren, dass eine Rotation der Items innerhalb der Vorsichtungsalgorithmen ASAV und PRIOR einen Einfluss auf Über- und Untertriage hat. Insbesondere die Position der Abfrage der Gehfähigkeit hat einen bedeutenden Einfluss auf die Spezifität der Algorithmen.

[Cardiac arrest under special circumstances]

These guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest under Special Circumstances are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required for basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest under special circumstances; in particular, specific causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo-/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), specific settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation [in-flight, cruise ships], sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and specific patient groups (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological disease, morbid obesity, pregnancy).

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Cardiac arrest in special circumstances

These European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest in Special Circumstances guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required to basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest in special circumstances; specifically special causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), special settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, catheter laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation (in-flight, cruise ships), sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and special patient groups (asthma and COPD, neurological disease, obesity, pregnancy).

[Preclinical and intrahospital management of mass casualties and terrorist incidents]

Due to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, Ansbach, Munich, Berlin and more recently Manchester and London, terrorism is realized as a present threat to our society and social life, as well as a challenge for the health care system. Without fueling anxiety, there is a need for sensitization to this subject and to familiarize all concerned with the special kind of terrorist attack-related injuries, the operational priorities and tactics and the individual basic principles of preclinical and hospital care. There is a need to adapt the known established medical structure for a conventional mass casualty situation to the special requirements that are raised by this new kind of terrorist threat to our social life. It is the aim of this article, from a surgical point of view, to depict the tactics and challenges of preclinical care of the special kind of terrorist attack-related injuries from the site of the incident, via the advanced medical post or casualty collecting point, to the triage point at the hospital. The special needs of medical care and organizational aspects of the primary treatment in the hospital are highlighted and possible decisional options and different approaches are discussed.

Primary mass casualty incident triage: evidence for the benefit of yearly brief re-training from a simulation study

Background

Triage is a mainstay of early mass casualty incident (MCI) management. Standardized triage protocols aim at providing valid and reproducible results and, thus, improve triage quality. To date, there is little data supporting the extent and content of training and re-training on using such triage protocols within the Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The study objective was to assess the decline in triage skills indicating a minimum time interval for re-training. In addition, the effect of a one-hour repeating lesson on triage quality was analyzed.

Methods

A dummy based trial on primary MCI triage with yearly follow-up after initial training using the ASAV algorithm (Amberg-Schwandorf Algorithm for Primary Triage) was undertaken. Triage was assessed concerning accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, over-triage, under-triage, time requirement, and a comprehensive performance measure. A subgroup analysis of professional paramedics was made.

Results

Nine hundred ninety triage procedures performed by 51 providers were analyzed. At 1 year after initial training, triage accuracy and overall performance dropped significantly. Professional paramedic’s rate of correctly assigned triage categories deteriorated from 84 to 71%, and the overall performance score decreased from 95 to 90 points (maximum = 100). The observed decline in triage performance at 1 year after education made it necessary to conduct re-training. A brief didactic lecture of 45 min duration increased accuracy to 88% and the overall performance measure to 97.

Conclusions

To improve disaster preparedness, triage skills should be refreshed yearly by a brief re-education of all EMS providers.

Analysis of performance and stress caused by a simulation of a mass casualty incident

OBJECTIVE

To determine the stress that is potentially produced in professional health workers due to a mass casualty incident (MCI) simulated exercise, and its relation to prior academic training and the role played in the simulation.

METHODS

Observational study of stress in a MCI. For this work, two MCI drills comprised of 40 victims each were conducted. Two randomized groups of 36 students each were created: Master's Students Group (MSG) and Undergraduate Student Group (USG). The role performed by each student (triage or sectorization) was assessed. The stress level was determined by prior and subsequent measurements of alpha-amylase (αA), HR, SBP and DBP.

RESULTS

The percentage of victims that were correctly triaged was 88.6%, 91.84% for MSG and 83.76% for the USG (p=0.004). The basal αA was 97,107.50±72,182.67IU/L and the subsequent αA was 136,195.55±90,176.46±IU/L (p<0.001). The baseline HR was 78.74±14.92beats/min and the subsequent HR was 95.65±23.59beats/min (p=0.000). We found significant differences in the αA between students who performed the triage and those who performed sectorization but there were no differences between undergraduate and Masters' students.

CONCLUSION

Conducting a simulated exercise caused stress in personnel involved in the MCI, with a greater impact on participants who performed triage, although it was not influenced by their prior academic level. The stress level in our case did not affect or determine the performance of acquired skills.

Impact of systolic blood pressure limits on the diagnostic value of triage algorithms

Background

Major incidents are characterized by a lack of resources compared to an overwhelming number of casualties, requiring a prioritization of medical treatment. Triage algorithms are an essential tool for prioritizing the urgency of treatment for patients, but the evidence to support one over another is very limited. We determined the influence of blood pressure limits on the diagnostic value of triage algorithms, considering if pulse should be palpated centrally or peripherally.

Methods

We used a database representing 500 consecutive HEMS patients. Each patient was allocated a triage category (T1/red, T2/yellow, T3/green) by a group of experienced doctors in disaster medicine, independent of any algorithm. mSTaRT, ASAV, Field Triage Score (FTS), Care Flight (CF), “Model Bavaria” and two Norwegian algorithms (Nor and TAS), all containing the question “Pulse palpable?”, were translated into Excel commands, calculating the triage category for each patient automatically. We used 5 blood pressure limits ranging from 130 to 60 mmHg to determine palpable pulse. The resulting triage categories were analyzed with respect to sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index (J) separately for trauma and non-trauma patients, and for all patients combined.

Results

For the entire population of patients within all triage algorithms the Youden Index (J) was highest for T1 (J between 0,14 and 0,62). Combining trauma and non-trauma patients, the highest J was obtained by ASAV (J = 0,62 at 60 mmHg). ASAV scored the highest within trauma patients (J = 0,87 at 60 mmHg), whereas Model Bavaria (J = 0,54 at 80 mmHg) reached highest amongst non-trauma patients. FTS performed worst for all patients (J = 0,14 at 60 mmHg), showing a lower score for trauma patients (J = 0,0 at 60 mmHg). Change of blood pressure limits resulted in different diagnostic values of all algorithms.

Discussion

We demonstrate that differing blood pressure limits have a remarkable impact on diagnostic values of triage algorithms. Further research is needed to determine the lowest blood pressure value that is possible to palpate at a peripheral artery compared to a central artery.

Conclusion

As a consequence, it might be important in which location pulses are palpated according to the algorithm at hand during triage of patients.

Diagnostic precision of triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents. English version

BACKGROUND

Regarding survival and quality of life recent mass casualty incidents again emphasize the importance of early identification of the correct degree of injury/illness to enable prioritization of treatment amongst patients and their transportation to an appropriate hospital. The present study investigated existing triage algorithms in terms of sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) as well as its process duration in a relevant emergency patient cohort.

METHODS

In this study 500 consecutive air rescue missions were evaluated by means of standardized patient records. Classification of patients was accomplished by 19 emergency physicians. Every case was independently classified by at least 3 physicians without considering any triage algorithm. Existing triage algorithms Primary Ranking for Initial Orientation in Emergency Medical Services (PRIOR), modified Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (mSTaRT), Field Triage Score (FTS), Amberg-Schwandorf Algorithm for Triage (ASAV), Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (STaRT), Care Flight, and Triage Sieve were additionally carried out computer based on each case, to enable calculation of quality criteria.

RESULTS

The analyzed cohort had an age of (mean ± SD) 59 ± 25 years, a NACA score of 3.5 ± 1.1 and consisted of 57% men. On arrival 8 patients were deceased. Consequently, 492 patients were included in the analysis. The distribution of triage categories T1/T2/T3 were 10%/47%/43%, respectively. The highest diagnostic quality was achieved with START, mSTaRT, and ASAV yielding a SE of 78% and a SP ranging from 80-83%. The subgroup of surgical patients reached a SE of 95% and a SP between 85-91%. The newly established algorithm PRIOR exerted a SE of 90% but merely a SP of 54% in the overall cohort thereby consuming the longest time for overall decision.

CONCLUSION

Triage procedures with acceptable diagnostic quality exist to identify the most severely injured. Due to its high rate of false positive results (over-triage) the recently developed PRIOR algorithm will cause overload of available resources for the severely injured within mass casualty incident missions. Non-surgical patients still are poorly identified by the available algorithms.

[Diagnostic quality of triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents]

BACKGROUND

Regarding survival and quality of life, recent mass casualty incidents have once more emphasized the importance of early identification of the correct degree of injury or illness, to enable prioritizing treatment of patients and transportation to an appropriate hospital. The present study investigated international triage algorithms in terms of sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) as well as the process duration in a relevant emergency patient cohort.

METHODS

A total of 500 consecutive air rescue missions were evaluated by means of standardized patient records. Interdisciplinary classification of patients was accomplished by 19 emergency physicians. Every case was independently classified according to the triage category by at least three physicians without considering any triage algorithm. The available triage algorithms PRIOR (Primary Ranking for Initial Orientation in Emergency Medical Services), mSTaRT (modified Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment), FTS (Field Triage Score), ASAV (Amberg-Schwandorf Algorithm for Triage), STaRT (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment), CareFlight triage and Triage Sieve were additionally carried out for each patient in a computer-based procedure, to enable calculation of test quality criteria for all procedures.

RESULTS

The analyzed cohort had a mean age of 59 ± 25 years (±SD), a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) score of 3.5 ± 1.1 and consisted of 57% men. On arrival 8 patients were already deceased, consequently 492 patients were included in the analysis. The distributions of triage categories I/II/III were 10%/47%/43%, respectively. The highest diagnostic quality was achieved with START, mSTaRT, and ASAV with 78% SE and 80-83% SP. The subgroup of surgical patients achieved 95% SE and 85-91% SP. The newly established algorithm PRIOR exerted an SE of 90% but an SP of only 54% in the overall cohort thereby taking the longest overall time for decisions.

CONCLUSION

Triage procedures with acceptable diagnostic quality exist to identify the most severely injured. Due to its high rate of false positive results (overtriage) in this study, the recently developed PRIOR algorithm could result in exhaustion of available resources for the severely injured and therefore to undertreatment of correctly assigned triage category I cases within mass casualty incidents. Non-surgical patients are still poorly allocated by the available algorithms. Contribution available free of charge by "Free Access".