Abstract
Triage is a key principle in the effective management of a major incident. Its effectiveness is a balance between identifying those in need of life-saving intervention, and those triaged incorrectly as either needing/not needing a life-saving intervention. The primary aim of this study was to report mortality in those under-triaged by existing major incident triage tools. Secondary aims were to report the ability of triage tools at identifying serious injury by body region (defined as an Abbreviated Injury Scale severity score≥3). Retrospective database analysis of the UK Trauma Audit Research Network for all adult patients (≥18 years) between 2006 and 2014. Patients were defined as priority one using a previously published list. Using the first recorded hospital physiology, patients were categorized by the Modified Physiological Triage Tool (MPTT), National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU) Sieve and the Major Incident Medical Management and Support (MIMMS) Triage Sieve. Categorical and continuous data were analyzed using a χ-test and Mann-Whitney U-test respectively. During the study period, 218 985 adult patients met the Trauma Audit Research Network inclusion criteria, with 24 791 (19.5%) priority one patients, of which 70% were male with a median age of 51 (33-71) years and injury severity score of 16 (9-25). The MPTT showed the lowest rate of under-triage (42.4%, P<0.001). Compared with existing methods, the MPTT under-triage population had significantly lower mortality (5.7%, P<0.001) with significantly fewer serious thorax and head injuries under-triaged than both the NARU Sieve and MIMMS Triage Sieve (P<0.001). This study has defined the implications of under-triage in the context of a major trauma population. The MPTT misses fewer severely injured patients, with a significant reduction in mortality. We suggest the MPTT to be considered as an alternative to existing primary major incident triage tools.
Highlights
ObjectiveExacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common in emergency departments (ED)
AM Kelly, S Laribi, AANZDEM study group, EURODEM study group / Joseph Epstein Centre for Emergency Medicine Research, Western Health, St Albans, Victoria, Australia
The cohorts were well matched for demographics and co-morbidities with the exception that significantly more in the EUR cohort were smokers (EUR vs. South East Asia/ Australasia (SEA) for all comparisons; 43% vs 24%)
Summary
The process of prioritising patients on the basis of clinical acuity, is a key principle in the effective management of a major incident. The overall effectiveness of the triage process is a balance between identifying those who need or don’t need a life-saving intervention, and those who are under or over-triaged as either incorrectly needing/not needing intervention. This study aims to describe the implications of under-triage by existing methods of primary major incident triage, and to report triage tool identification of serious injury (Abbreviated Injury Score > 3). Design and Method: We undertook a retrospective observational cohort study of the UK Trauma Audit Research Network for all adult patients (> 18 years) between 20062014. Using first recorded hospital physiological data, we categorised patients by the Modified Physiological Triage Tool (MPTT), the Triage Sieve and the National Ambulance Resilience Unit Sieve. We analysed categorical data using a chi-square test and continuous data with a Mann-Whitney U test
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call