使用艾伯塔省创伤登记处的大规模伤亡分诊系统的评估。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
David Jerome, David W Savage, Matthew Pietrosanu
{"title":"使用艾伯塔省创伤登记处的大规模伤亡分诊系统的评估。","authors":"David Jerome,&nbsp;David W Savage,&nbsp;Matthew Pietrosanu","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 8","pages":"659-666"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An assessment of mass casualty triage systems using the Alberta trauma registry.\",\"authors\":\"David Jerome,&nbsp;David W Savage,&nbsp;Matthew Pietrosanu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 8\",\"pages\":\"659-666\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00529-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:分诊是在临床资源有限的情况下,确定临床需求最大和获益可能性最大的患者的过程。本研究的主要目的是评估正式的大规模伤亡事件分诊工具识别需要紧急救生干预的患者的能力。方法:采用艾伯塔省创伤登记处(ATR)的数据评估7种分诊工具:START、JumpSTART、SALT、RAMP、MPTT、BCD和MITT。ATR中捕获的临床数据用于确定七种工具中的每种工具适用于每个患者的分诊类别。将这些分类与基于患者对特定紧急救生干预措施需求的参考标准定义进行比较。结果:在捕获的9448条记录中,有8652条包含在我们的分析中。最敏感的分类工具是MPTT,其敏感性为0.76(0.75,0.78)。评估的7种分诊工具中有4种的敏感性低于0.45。JumpSTART对儿科患者的敏感性最低,分类不足率最高。所有评估的分诊工具对有穿透性创伤的患者都有中高阳性预测值(> 0.67)。结论:在识别需要紧急救生干预的患者时,分诊工具的敏感性差异很大。MPTT、BCD和MITT是最敏感的分诊工具。在大规模伤亡事件中,应谨慎使用评估的所有分诊工具,因为它们可能无法识别需要紧急救生干预措施的大部分患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
171
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信