Triage in the Defence Medical Services

Assessment of the mass casualty triage during the November 2015 Paris area terrorist attacks: towards a simple triage rule

BACKROUND

Triage is key in the management of mass casualty incidents.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the prehospital triage performed during the 2015 Paris area terrorist attack.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANT

This was a retrospective cohort study that included all casualties of the attacks on 13 November 2015 in Paris area, France, that were admitted alive at the hospital within the first 24 h after the events. Patients were triaged as absolute emergency or relative emergency by a prehospital physician or nurse. This triage was then compared to the one of an expert panel that had retrospectively access to all prehospital and hospital files.

OUTCOMES MEASURES AND ANALYSIS

The primary endpoints were the rate of overtriage and undertriage, defined as number of patients misclassified in one triage category, divided by the total number of patients in this triage category.

MAIN RESULT

Among 337 casualties admitted to the hospital, 262 (78%) were triaged during prehospital care, with, respectively, 74 (28%) and 188 (72%) as absolute and relative emergencies. Among these casualties, the expert panel classified 96 (37%) patients as absolute emergencies and 166 (63%) as relative emergency. The rate of undertriage and overtriage was 36% [95% confidence interval (CI), 27-47%] and 8% (95% CI, 4-13%), respectively. Among undertriaged casualties, 8 (23%) were considered as being severely undertriaged. Among overtriaged casualties, 10 (77%) were considered as being severely overtriaged.

CONCLUSION

A simple prehospital triage for trauma casualties during the 13 November terrorist attack in Paris could have been performed triaged in 78% of casualties that were admitted to the hospital, with a 36% rate of undertriage and 8% of overtriage. Qualitative analysis of undertriage and overtriage indicate some possibilities for further improvement.

Extending existing recommended military casualty evacuation timelines will likely increase morbidity and mortality: a UK consensus statement

INTRODUCTION

Future conflicts may have limited use of aviation-based prehospital emergency care for evacuation. This will increase the likelihood of extended evacuation timelines and an extended hold at a forward hospital care facility following the completion of damage control surgery or acute medical interventions.

METHODS

A three-round Delphi Study was undertaken using a panel comprising 44 experts from the UK armed forces including clinicians, logisticians, medical planners and commanders. The panel was asked to consider the effect of an extended hold at Deployed Hospital Care (Forward) from the current 2-hour timeline to +4, +8, +12 and +24 hours on a broad range of clinical and logistical issues. Where 75% of respondents had the same opinion, consensus was accepted. Areas where consensus could not be achieved were used to identify future research priorities.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached that increasing timelines would increase the personnel, logistics and equipment support required to provide clinical care. There is a tipping point with a prolonged hold over 8 hours, after which the greatest number of clinical concerns emerge. Additional specialties of surgeons other than general and orthopaedic surgeons will likely be required with holds over 24 hours, and robust telemedicine would not negate this requirement.

CONCLUSIONS

Retaining acute medical emergencies at 4 hours, and head injuries was considered a particular risk. This could potentially be mitigated by an increased forward capacity of some elements of medical care and availability of a CT scanner and intracranial pressure monitoring at over 12 hours. Any efforts to mitigate the effects of prolonged timelines will come at the expense of an increased logistical burden and a reduction in mobility. Ultimately the true effect of prolonged timelines can only be answered by close audit and analysis of clinical outcomes during future operations with an extended hold.

Major incident triage: A consensus based definition of the essential life-saving interventions during the definitive care phase of a major incident

INTRODUCTION

Triage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents. The process currently relies on algorithms assigning patients to specific triage categories; there is, however, little guidance as to what these categories represent. Previously, these algorithms were validated against injury severity scores, but it is accepted now that the need for life-saving intervention is a more important outcome. However, the definition of a life-saving intervention is unclear. The aim of this study was to define what constitutes a life-saving intervention, in order to facilitate the definition of an adult priority one patient during the definitive care phase of a major incident.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi study, using a panel of subject matter experts drawn from the United Kingdom and Republic of South Africa with a background in Emergency Care or Major Incident Management. The study was conducted using an online survey tool, over three rounds between July and December 2013. A four point Likert scale was used to seek consensus for 50 possible interventions, with a consensus level set at 70%.

RESULTS

24 participants completed all three rounds of the Delphi, with 32 life-saving interventions reaching consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a consensus definition of what constitutes a life-saving intervention in the context of an adult, priority one patient during the definitive care phase of a major incident. The definition will contribute to further research into major incident triage, specifically in terms of validation of an adult major incident triage tool.