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.

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

Introduction

The Modified Physiological Triage Tool (MPTT) is a recently developed primary triage tool and in comparison with existing tools demonstrates the greatest sensitivity at predicting need for life-saving intervention (LSI) within both military and civilian populations. To improve its applicability, we proposed to increase the upper respiratory rate (RR) threshold to 24 breaths per minute (bpm) to produce the MPTT-24. Our aim was to conduct a feasibility analysis of the proposed MPTT-24, comparing its performance with the existing UK Military Sieve.

Method

A retrospective review of the Joint Theatre Trauma Registry (JTTR) and Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) databases was performed for all adult (>18 years) patients presenting between 2006–2013 (JTTR) and 2014 (TARN). Patients were defined as priority one (P1) if they received one or more LSIs. Using first recorded hospital RR in isolation, sensitivity and specificity of the ≥24 bpm threshold was compared with the existing threshold (≥22 bpm) at predicting P1 status. Patients were then categorised as P1 or not-P1 by the MPTT, MPTT-24 and the UK Military Sieve.

Results

The MPTT and MPTT-24 outperformed existing UK methods of triage with a statistically significant (p<0.001) increase in sensitivity of between 25.5% and 29.5%. In both populations, the MPTT-24 demonstrated an absolute reduction in sensitivity with an increase in specificity when compared with the MPTT. A statistically significant difference was observed between the MPTT and MPTT-24 in the way they categorised TARN and JTTR cases as P1 (p<0.001).

Conclusions

When compared with the existing MPTT, the MPTT-24 allows for a more rapid triage assessment. Both continue to outperform existing methods of primary major incident triage and within the military setting, the slight increase in undertriage is offset by a reduction in overtriage. We recommend that the MPTT-24 be considered as a replacement to the existing UK Military Sieve.

Medical ethics and the Romanian law. Surrogate decisions regarding life-saving medical interventions

Romanian doctors who encounter controversial surrogate decisions such as refusal of life-saving interventions react differently from an ethical perspective. Some do not take into account the surrogates' rejection of treatment, while others respect and abide by the surrogates' decision and withhold the refused procedures, forgoing their ethical responsibilities. In this article we will defend the ethical position that doctors should consider and, therefore, thoroughly evaluate the surrogate decisions in cases where the medical intervention is life-saving and the benefits for the patient are significant and certain. The doctors who choose to obey the controversial decisions of surrogates usually invoke the Romanian medical law. In the following we argue that in today's Romanian medical framework there is a conflict between ethical (professional) obligations and the some of the legal provisions and we provide two ethical arguments, one principlist and one contractualist, that prompt for the overriding of refusals which concern life-saving interventions.