Major incident triage and the implementation of a new triage tool, the MPTT-24

Validation of motor component of Glasgow coma scale in lieu of total Glasgow coma scale as a pediatric trauma field triage tool

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital trauma triage and disability assessment of pediatric patients can be challenging on the field, especially in the pre-verbal age group. It would be useful if the same triage tool and criteria can be used for both adults and children to risk-stratify the need of higher acuity of trauma care.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate if using only the motor component of Glasgow Coma Scale (mGCS), as a quick field trauma triage tool, was non-inferior to total GCS (tGCS), and if mGCS <6 was non-inferior to tGCS <14, in predicting the need for intensive care or mortality in the pediatric population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients <18-years-old, who presented to our emergency department (ED) with moderate (Injury Severity Score (ISS) 9-15) to severe (ISS > 15) traumatic injuries from January 2012 to December 2021. Using ED triage data, mortality and the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission were used as surrogate outcomes to investigate if mGCS <6 was non-inferior to tGCS <14, and the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) was used as a measure of comparability.

RESULTS

Among 582 included for analysis, the median age was 7-years-old (2-12), and most were male (63.4%). 22.4% patients demised or required ICU care. mGCS <6 had an AUROC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.79), which was non-inferior to tGCS <14; AUROC 0.76, (95% CI 0.72 to 0.81), for identifying children requiring ICU management or demised. The results shown here were based on the AUROCs that were used to evaluate the discriminatory ability of tGCS <14 and mGCS <6 in prediction of mortality and the need for ICU care.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that mGCS was significantly associated with tGCS, and was non- inferior to the latter as a triage tool in pediatric trauma. It validated the use of mGCS <6 in lieu of tGCS <14 in the pre-hospital field triage of pediatric patients, in identification of children at risk of death or requiring ICU care. Larger prospective, observational studies using on-scene data would be required for more robust validation and determine optimal cut-offs.

An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry

OBJECTIVE

Triage is the process of identifying patients with both the greatest clinical need and the greatest likelihood of benefit in the setting of limited clinical resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the ability of formal mass casualty incident triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.

METHODS

Data from the Alberta Trauma Registry (ATR) was used to assess seven triage tools: START, JumpSTART, SALT, RAMP, MPTT, BCD and MITT. Clinical data captured in the ATR was used to determine which triage category each of the seven tools would have applied to each patient. These categorizations were compared to a reference standard definition based on the patients' need for specific urgent lifesaving interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 9448 records that were captured 8652 were included in our analysis. The most sensitive triage tool was MPTT, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.76 (0.75, 0.78). Four of the seven triage tools evaluated had sensitivities below 0.45. JumpSTART had the lowest sensitivity and the highest under-triage rate for pediatric patients. All the triage tools evaluated had a moderate to high positive predictive value (> 0.67) for patients who had experienced penetrating trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a wide range in the sensitivity of triage tools to identify patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions. MPTT, BCD and MITT were the most sensitive triage tools assessed. All of the triage tools assessed should be employed with caution during mass casualty incidents as they may fail to identify a large proportion of patients requiring urgent lifesaving interventions.

Paediatric major incident triage: A Delphi process to determine clinicians' attitudes and beliefs within the United Kingdom and Ireland

AIM

Triage is key to effective management of major incidents, yet there is scarce evidence surrounding the optimal method of paediatric major incident triage (MIT). This study aimed to derive consensus on key components of paediatric MIT among healthcare professionals responsible for triage during paediatric major incidents.

METHODS

Two-round online Delphi consensus study delivered July 2021-October 2021, including participants from pre-hospital and hospital specialities responsible for triage during paediatric major incidents. A 5-point Likert scale was used to determine consensus, set a priori at 70%.

RESULTS

111 clinicians completed both rounds; 13 of 17 statements reached consensus. Positive consensus was reached on rescue breaths in mechanisms associated with hypoxia or asphyxiation, mobility assessment as a crude discriminator and use of adult physiology for older children. Whilst positive consensus was reached on the benefits of a single MIT tool across all adult and paediatric age ranges, there was negative consensus in relation to clinical implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi study has established consensus among a large group of clinicians involved in the management of major incidents on several key elements of paediatric major incident triage. Further work is required to develop a triage tool that can be implemented based on emerging and ongoing research and which is acceptable to clinicians.

Prehospital emergency care in a humanitarian environment: an overview of the ethical considerations

Recent history has demonstrated that UK Defence personnel can be used, potentially with little notice, in humanitarian disaster zones. The provision of prehospital emergency care (PHEC) in a humanitarian environment requires an innovative approach to overcome the technical challenges of a resource-limited setting. In addition to technical challenges, prehospital practitioners working in a humanitarian environment can expect to be faced with ethically testing situations that they are not familiar with in their usual practice. The organisational and individual ethical decision-making burden can result in significant harms. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to discuss the ethical considerations relevant to providing PHEC during a humanitarian disaster in order that personnel can be more prepared to optimally deliver care. This is a paper commissioned as a part of the Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Operations special issue of BMJ Military Health.

Emergency first responder management of combat injuries to the torso in the military, remote and austere settings

Traumatic injuries to the torso account for almost a quarter of all injuries seen in combat and are typically secondary to blast or gunshot wounds. Injuries due to road traffic collisions or violence are also relatively common during humanitarian and disaster relief efforts. There may also be multiple injured patients in these settings, and surgical care may be limited by a lack of facilities and resources in such a non-permissive environment. The first responder in these scenarios should be prepared to manage patients with severe injuries to the torso. We aim to describe the management of these injuries in the military and austere environment, within the scope of practice of a level 5 registered prehospital practitioner.

New NHS Prehospital Major Incident Triage Tool: from MIMMS to MITT

Triage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents and is the process by which patients are prioritised on the basis of their clinical acuity. However, work published over the last decade has demonstrated that existing methods of triage perform poorly when trying to identify patients in need of life-saving interventions. As a result, a review of major incident triage was initiated by NHS England with the remit to determine the optimum way in which to triage patients of all ages in a major incident for the UK. This article describes the output from this review, the changes being undertaken to UK major incident triage and the introduction of the new NHS Major Incident Triage Tool from the Spring of 2023.

Comparative analysis of major incident triage tools in children: a UK population-based analysis

INTRODUCTION

Triage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents. There is currently a paucity of evidence to guide the triage of children. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of nine adult and paediatric triage tools, including the novel 'Sheffield Paediatric Triage Tool' (SPTT), assessing their ability in identifying patients needing life-saving interventions (LSIs).

METHODS

A 10-year (2008-2017) retrospective database review of the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) Database for paediatric patients (<16 years) was performed. Primary outcome was identification of patients receiving one or more LSIs from a previously defined list. Secondary outcomes included mortality and prediction of Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15. Primary analysis was conducted on patients with complete prehospital physiological data with planned secondary analyses using first recorded data. Performance characteristics were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, undertriage and overtriage.

RESULTS

15 133 patients met TARN inclusion criteria. 4962 (32.8%) had complete prehospital physiological data and 8255 (54.5%) had complete first recorded physiological data. The majority of patients were male (69.5%), with a median age of 11.9 years. The overwhelming majority of patients (95.4%) sustained blunt trauma, yielding a median ISS of 9 and overall, 875 patients (17.6%) received at least one LSI. The SPTT demonstrated the greatest sensitivity of all triage tools at identifying need for LSI (92.2%) but was associated with the highest rate of overtriage (75.0%). Both the Paediatric Triage Tape (sensitivity 34.1%) and JumpSTART (sensitivity 45.0%) performed less well at identifying LSI. By contrast, the adult Modified Physiological Triage Tool-24 (MPTT-24) triage tool had the second highest sensitivity (80.8%) with tolerable rates of overtriage (70.2%).

CONCLUSION

The SPTT and MPTT-24 outperform existing paediatric triage tools at identifying those patients requiring LSIs. This may necessitate a change in recommended practice. Further work is needed to determine the optimum method of paediatric major incident triage, but consideration should be given to simplifying major incident triage by the use of one generic tool (the MPTT-24) for adults and children.

Paediatric major incident triage: UK military tool offers best performance in predicting the need for time-critical major surgical and resuscitative intervention

BACKGROUND

Children are frequently injured during major incidents (MI), including terrorist attacks, conflict and natural disasters. Triage facilitates healthcare resource allocation in order to maximise overall survival. A critical function of MI triage tools is to identify patients needing time-critical major resuscitative and surgical intervention (Priority 1 (P1) status). This study compares the performance of 11 MI triage tools in predicting P1 status in children from the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry.

METHODS

Patients aged <16 years within TARN (January 2008-December 2017) were included. 11 triage tools were applied to patients' first recorded pre-hospital physiology. Patients were retrospectively assigned triage categories (P1, P2, P3, Expectant or Dead) using predefined intervention-based criteria. Tools' performance in <16s were evaluated within four-yearly age subgroups, comparing tool-predicted and intervention-based priority status.

FINDINGS

Amongst 4962 patients, mortality was 1.1% (n = 53); median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 9 (IQR 9-16). Blunt injuries predominated (94.4%). 1343 (27.1%) met intervention-based criteria for P1, exhibiting greater intensive care requirement (60.2% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.01) and ISS (median 17 vs 9, p < 0.01) compared with P2 patients. The Battlefield Casualty Drills (BCD) Triage Sieve had greatest sensitivity (75.7%) in predicting P1 status in children <16 years, demonstrating a 38.4-49.8% improvement across all subgroups of children <12 years compared with the UK's current Paediatric Triage Tape (PTT). JumpSTART demonstrated low sensitivity in predicting P1 status in 4 to 8 year olds (35.5%) and 0 to 4 year olds (28.5%), and was outperformed by its adult counterpart START (60.6% and 59.6%).

INTERPRETATION

The BCD Triage Sieve had greatest sensitivity in predicting P1 status in this paediatric trauma registry population: we recommend it replaces the PTT in UK practice. Users of JumpSTART may consider alternative tools. We recommend Lerner's triage category definitions when conducting MI evaluations.

The BCD Triage Sieve outperforms all existing major incident triage tools: Comparative analysis using the UK national trauma registry population

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

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

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% vs. 5·0%, p<0.001), increased intensive care requirement (52·4% vs 5·0%, p<0.001), and more severe injuries (median ISS 21 vs 9, p<0.001) compared with P2 patients.In 16-64 year olds, the highest performing tool was the Battlefield Casualty Drills (BCD) Triage Sieve (Prediction of P1 status: 70·4% sensitivity, over-triage 70·9%, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) 0·068 [95%CI 0·676-0·684]). The UK National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU) Triage Sieve had sensitivity of 44·9%; over-triage 56·4%; AUC 0·666 (95%CI 0·662-0·670). All tools performed poorly amongst the elderly (65+ years).

INTERPRETATION

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

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.

Manchester Arena Attack: management of paediatric penetrating brain injuries

PURPOSE

The Manchester Arena bombing on 22 May 2017 resulted in 22 deaths and over 160 casualties requiring medical attention. Given the threat of modern- era terrorist attacks in civilian environments, it is important that we are able to anticipate and appropriately manage neurological injuries associated with these events. This article describes our experience of managing paediatric neurosurgical blast injuries, from initial triage and operative management to longer-term considerations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Case study and literature review.

RESULTS

Paediatric traumatic and penetrating brain injury patients often make a good neurological recovery despite low GCS at time of injury; this should be accounted for during triage and operative decision making in major trauma, mass casualty events. Conservative management of retained shrapnel is advocated in view of low long-term infection rates with retained shrapnel and worsened neurological outcome with shrapnel retrieval. All penetrating brain injuries should receive a prolonged course of broad-spectrum antibiotics and undergo long term follow-up imaging to monitor for the development of cerebral abscesses. MRI should never be utilised in penetrating brain injury cases, even in the absence of macroscopically visible fragments, due to the effect of MRI ferromagnetic field torque on shrapnel fragments. Anti-epileptic drugs should only be prescribed for the initial seven days after injury, as continuing beyond this does not incur any benefit in the reduction of long term post-traumatic epilepsy.

CONCLUSION

All receiving neurosurgical units should become familiar with optimum management of these thankfully rare, but complex injuries from their initial presentation to long term follow up considerations. All neurosurgical units should have well-rehearsed local plans to follow in the event of such incidents, ensuring timely deliverance of appropriate neurosurgical care in such extreme settings.

Major incident triage and the evaluation of the Triage Sort as a secondary triage method

INTRODUCTION

A key principle in the effective management of major incidents is triage, the process of prioritising patients on the basis of their clinical acuity. In many countries including the UK, a two-stage approach to triage is practised, with primary triage at the scene followed by a more detailed assessment using a secondary triage process, the Triage Sort. To date, no studies have analysed the performance of the Triage Sort in the civilian setting. The primary aim of this study was to determine the performance of the Triage Sort at predicting the need for life-saving intervention (LSI).

METHODS

Using the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) database for all adult patients (>18 years) between 2006 and 2014, we determined which patients received one or more LSIs using a previously defined list. The first recorded hospital physiology was used to categorise patient priority using the Triage Sort, National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU) Sieve and the Modified Physiological Triage Tool-24 (MPTT-24). Performance characteristics were evaluated using sensitivity and specificity with statistical analysis using a McNemar's test.

RESULTS

127 233patients (58.1%) had complete data and were included: 55.6% men, aged 61.4 (IQR 43.1-80.0 years), ISS 9 (IQR 9-16), with 24 791 (19.5%) receiving at least one LSI (priority 1). The Triage Sort demonstrated the lowest accuracy of all triage tools at identifying the need for LSI (sensitivity 15.7% (95% CI 15.2 to 16.2) correlating with the highest rate of under-triage (84.3% (95% CI 83.8 to 84.8), but it had the greatest specificity (98.7% (95% CI 98.6 to 98.8).

CONCLUSION

Within a civilian trauma registry population, the Triage Sort demonstrated the poorest performance at identifying patients in need of LSI. Its use as a secondary triage tool should be reviewed, with an urgent need for further research to determine the optimum method of secondary triage.

Triage and the Modified Physiological Triage Tool-24 (MPTT-24)

Major incidents occur on a regular basis. So far in 2017, England has witnessed five terrorism-related major incidents, resulting in approximately 40 fatalities and 400 injured. Triage is a key principle in the effective management of a major incident and involves prioritising patients on the basis of their clinical acuity. This paper describes the limitations associated with existing methods of primary major incident triage and the process of developing a new and improved triage tool-the Modified Physiological Triage Tool-24 (MPTT-24). Whilst the MPTT-24 is likely to be the optimum physiological method for primary major incident triage, it needs to be accompanied by an appropriate secondary triage process. The existing UK military and civilian secondary triage tool, the Triage Sort, is described, which offers little advantage over primary methods for identifying patients who require life-saving intervention. Further research is required to identify the optimum method of secondary triage.