Evaluation of Mass Casualty Triage Algorithms in a Pediatric Population

N. Soucy,Hai Hu,Yu Cao
2017-01-01
Abstract:technologies claim to be more efficient. Methods: This prospective observational cross-over study was performed during a live disaster simulation at an urban level 1 trauma center. Healthcare providers (two doctors, two paramedics, and two nurses) each triaged a total of thirty simulated patients, half using paper-based (manual) and half using computer-based (electronic) triage. Speed and accuracy of triage using both methods was measured. Following the exercise, simulated patients and participating health care providers completed a feedback form. Results: There were no significant differences in triage times (seconds) between manual and electronic methods by doctors (10.3±7.2 vs 15.3±8.0, respectively) and nurses (12.8±9.8 vs 11.2±7.2), whereas the manual method was faster for paramedics (11.1±7.2 vs 21.5±7.6, p<0.001). However, after accounting for extra actions required using the manual method, adjusted triage times for doctors (21.4±7.8) and nurses (24.0±9.9) were significantly longer using manual compared to the electronic method (p<0.001). Triage accuracy was similar (p=0.70) between manual (72/90, 80%) and electronic (75/90, 83%). The electronic method was preferred by 4 out of 6 (67%) healthcare providers, while almost half (14/30, 47%) of patients had no preference. While patients commonly perceived the computer method as “less personal” they also perceived it as “better organized”. Conclusion: This study suggests that computer triage may be the most efficient triage tool for healthcare providers familiar with the technology. Further studies are required to assess the performance of electronic hospital triage in the context of a rapid patient surge and limited computer availability. We present a framework for assessing the accuracy, efficiency and feasibility of digital technologies in live disaster simulations.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?