SALT和START分诊系统对患者视力水平的分类:系统回顾

Q2 Nursing
Hendri Purwadi, K. Breaden, C. McCloud, Satriya Pranata
{"title":"SALT和START分诊系统对患者视力水平的分类:系统回顾","authors":"Hendri Purwadi, K. Breaden, C. McCloud, Satriya Pranata","doi":"10.14710/nmjn.v11i3.37008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Two common triage systems have been widely used in mass casualty incidents (MCIs) and disaster situations, namely START (simple triage algorithm and rapid treatment) and SALT (sort, assess, lifesaving, intervention, and treatment/transport). There is currently controversy regarding the effectiveness of SALT over the START triage system.Purpose: This systematic review aims to compare the accuracy of the SALT and START triage systems in disaster and MCI settings.Methods: The literature was searched using a systematic search strategy for articles published from 2009 to 2020 in the Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest databases, and the grey literature. This review included simulation-based and medical record-based studies investigating the accuracy and applicability of the SALT and START triage systems in adult and child populations during MCIs and disasters. All types of studies were included. The PRISMA flowchart was used to retain the articles, and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of the reviewed studies.Results: Of 1,450 articles identified in the search, 10 articles were included. It was found that the START triage system had a wide range and inconsistent levels of accuracy (44% to 94.2%) compared to the SALT triage system (70% to 83%). The under-triage error of the START triage system ranged from 2.73% to 20%, which was slightly lower than the SALT triage system (7.6% to 23.3%). The over-triage error of the START triage system (2% to 53%) was slightly higher than the SALT triage system (2% to 22%). However, the time taken to apply START triage system (70 to 72.18 seconds) was faster than for the SALT triage system (78 seconds).Conclusion: The START triage system was simpler and faster than SALT. Conversely, the SALT triage system appeared to be slightly more accurate, more consistent, and had a lower rate of under- and over-triage error than START. It appears that neither the SALT nor the START triage system is superior to the other. Further research is needed to establish the most appropriate disaster and MCI triage system, especially for the Indonesian context. ","PeriodicalId":36409,"journal":{"name":"Nurse Media Journal of Nursing","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The SALT and START Triage System for Classifying Patient Acuity Level: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Hendri Purwadi, K. Breaden, C. McCloud, Satriya Pranata\",\"doi\":\"10.14710/nmjn.v11i3.37008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Two common triage systems have been widely used in mass casualty incidents (MCIs) and disaster situations, namely START (simple triage algorithm and rapid treatment) and SALT (sort, assess, lifesaving, intervention, and treatment/transport). There is currently controversy regarding the effectiveness of SALT over the START triage system.Purpose: This systematic review aims to compare the accuracy of the SALT and START triage systems in disaster and MCI settings.Methods: The literature was searched using a systematic search strategy for articles published from 2009 to 2020 in the Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest databases, and the grey literature. This review included simulation-based and medical record-based studies investigating the accuracy and applicability of the SALT and START triage systems in adult and child populations during MCIs and disasters. All types of studies were included. The PRISMA flowchart was used to retain the articles, and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of the reviewed studies.Results: Of 1,450 articles identified in the search, 10 articles were included. It was found that the START triage system had a wide range and inconsistent levels of accuracy (44% to 94.2%) compared to the SALT triage system (70% to 83%). The under-triage error of the START triage system ranged from 2.73% to 20%, which was slightly lower than the SALT triage system (7.6% to 23.3%). The over-triage error of the START triage system (2% to 53%) was slightly higher than the SALT triage system (2% to 22%). However, the time taken to apply START triage system (70 to 72.18 seconds) was faster than for the SALT triage system (78 seconds).Conclusion: The START triage system was simpler and faster than SALT. Conversely, the SALT triage system appeared to be slightly more accurate, more consistent, and had a lower rate of under- and over-triage error than START. It appears that neither the SALT nor the START triage system is superior to the other. Further research is needed to establish the most appropriate disaster and MCI triage system, especially for the Indonesian context. \",\"PeriodicalId\":36409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nurse Media Journal of Nursing\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nurse Media Journal of Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14710/nmjn.v11i3.37008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nurse Media Journal of Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14710/nmjn.v11i3.37008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:两种常见的分诊系统在大规模伤亡事件(MCIs)和灾害情况下被广泛使用,即START(简单分诊算法和快速治疗)和SALT(分类、评估、救生、干预和治疗/运输)。目前关于SALT与START分诊系统的有效性存在争议。目的:本系统综述旨在比较SALT和START分诊系统在灾害和MCI设置中的准确性。方法:采用系统检索策略,在Medline、CINAHL、Web of Science、Scopus、PubMed、ProQuest数据库和灰色文献中检索2009 - 2020年发表的文章。本综述包括基于模拟和基于病历的研究,调查了SALT和START分诊系统在MCIs和灾害期间成人和儿童人群中的准确性和适用性。所有类型的研究都包括在内。使用PRISMA流程图保留文章,并使用Joanna Briggs研究所的关键评估工具评估所审查研究的质量。结果:在检索到的1,450篇文章中,有10篇文章被纳入。研究发现,与SALT分诊系统(70%到83%)相比,START分诊系统具有广泛的准确性和不一致的水平(44%到94.2%)。START分诊系统的漏诊率为2.73% ~ 20%,略低于SALT分诊系统(7.6% ~ 23.3%)。START分诊系统的过度分诊误差(2% ~ 53%)略高于SALT分诊系统(2% ~ 22%)。然而,应用START分诊系统所需的时间(70到72.18秒)比使用SALT分诊系统(78秒)要快。结论:START分诊系统比SALT分诊系统简单、快捷。相反,SALT分类系统似乎比START更准确,更一致,并且比START的分类错误率更低。看来SALT和START分诊系统都没有优劣之分。需要进一步研究以建立最合适的灾害和MCI分诊系统,特别是针对印度尼西亚的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The SALT and START Triage System for Classifying Patient Acuity Level: A Systematic Review
Background: Two common triage systems have been widely used in mass casualty incidents (MCIs) and disaster situations, namely START (simple triage algorithm and rapid treatment) and SALT (sort, assess, lifesaving, intervention, and treatment/transport). There is currently controversy regarding the effectiveness of SALT over the START triage system.Purpose: This systematic review aims to compare the accuracy of the SALT and START triage systems in disaster and MCI settings.Methods: The literature was searched using a systematic search strategy for articles published from 2009 to 2020 in the Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest databases, and the grey literature. This review included simulation-based and medical record-based studies investigating the accuracy and applicability of the SALT and START triage systems in adult and child populations during MCIs and disasters. All types of studies were included. The PRISMA flowchart was used to retain the articles, and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of the reviewed studies.Results: Of 1,450 articles identified in the search, 10 articles were included. It was found that the START triage system had a wide range and inconsistent levels of accuracy (44% to 94.2%) compared to the SALT triage system (70% to 83%). The under-triage error of the START triage system ranged from 2.73% to 20%, which was slightly lower than the SALT triage system (7.6% to 23.3%). The over-triage error of the START triage system (2% to 53%) was slightly higher than the SALT triage system (2% to 22%). However, the time taken to apply START triage system (70 to 72.18 seconds) was faster than for the SALT triage system (78 seconds).Conclusion: The START triage system was simpler and faster than SALT. Conversely, the SALT triage system appeared to be slightly more accurate, more consistent, and had a lower rate of under- and over-triage error than START. It appears that neither the SALT nor the START triage system is superior to the other. Further research is needed to establish the most appropriate disaster and MCI triage system, especially for the Indonesian context. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing Earth and Planetary Sciences-Earth and Planetary Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信