Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Malik NS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8257989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCanadian patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) typically undergo a triage process where they are assessed by a specially trained nurse and assigned a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score, indicating their level of acuity and urgency of assessment. We sought to assess the ability of patients to self-triage themselves through use of one of two of our proprietary self-triage tools, and how this would compare with the standard nurse-driven triage process.MethodsWe enrolled a convenience sample of ambulatory ED patients aged 17 years or older who presented with chief complaints of chest pain, abdominal pain, breathing problems, or musculoskeletal pain. Participants completed one, or both, of an algorithm generated self-triage (AGST) survey, or visual acuity scale (VAS) based self-triage tool which subsequently generated a CTAS score. Our primary outcome was to assess the accuracy of these tools to the CTAS score generated through the nurse-driven triage process.ResultsA total of 223 patients were included in our analysis. Of these, 32 (14.3%) presented with chest pain, 25 (11.2%) with shortness of breath, 75 (33.6%) with abdominal pain, and 91 (40.8%) with musculoskeletal pain. Of the total number of patients, 142 (47.2%) completed the AGST tool, 159 (52.8%) completed the VAS tool and 78 (25.9%) completed both tools. When compared to the nurse-driven triage standard, both the AGST and VAS tools had poor levels of agreement for each of the four presenting complaints.ConclusionsSelf-triage through use of an AGST or VAS tool is inaccurate compared to the established standard of nurse-driven triage. Although existing literature exists which suggests that self-triage tools developed for specific subsets of complaints may be feasible, our results would suggest that adopting the self-triage approach on a broader scale for all-comers to the ED does not appear to be a viable option to enhance the current triage process. Further study is required to show if self-triage can be used in the ED to optimize the triage process.

Project description:BackgroundChildren 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.MethodsPatients 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.FindingsAmongst 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%).InterpretationThe 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.