2018•Prehospital Emergency CareRequires access

The Use of Field Triage in Disaster and Mass Casualty Incidents: A Survey of Current Practices by EMS Personnel

Kevin M. Ryan, Douglas C. George, James H. Liu, Patricia Mitchell, Kerrie P. Nelson, Ricky C. Kue

Open publisher page 31 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mass casualty incident (MCI) triage and the use of triage tags to assign treatment priorities are not fully implemented despite emergency medical services (EMS) personnel training during drills and exercises. OBJECTIVES: To compare current field triage practices during both training and actual MCIs and identify any potential barriers to use. METHODS: During training sessions from November 2015 through March 2016, an anonymous survey was distributed to personnel in 3 distinct types of paid full-time EMS systems: Boston EMS (2-tiered, municipal third-service); Portland Fire Department (fire department-based ALS); and Stokes County EMS (county-based ALS) combined with Forsyth County EMS (county-based ALS). Data included personnel demographics and previous participation experiences in both drill and actual MCIs. Personnel with any prior MCI experience were queried regarding triage tag use and type of algorithm used. Data on barriers to use of triage tags and methods of communication of patient information were also collected. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. RESULTS: Overall survey participation rate was 77.9% (464/596). Among all respondents, 38.7% (179/464) reported participating in both a drill and actual MCI's. In these cases, respondents reported less likely use of triage tags during actual MCI's compared to drills, (34.1 vs. 91.8%, p < 0.01), less likely to complete full triage (16.3 vs. 68.7%, p < 0.01) and less likely to employ geographical triage (56.8 vs. 90.4% p < 0.01). Verbal report was the most common communication method to hospitals (93.1%) when triage tags were not used. Responders reported proximity to the hospital as the most common reason for not using triage tags during an actual MCI (29.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being a fundamental skill in MCI response, triage and other standard practices have not always been utilized in actual events despite training. EMS educators and disaster planners should consider strategies to better incorporate MCI practices during real world events.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Mass casualty incident (MCI) triage and the use of triage tags to assign treatment priorities are not fully implemented despite emergency medical services (EMS) personnel training during drills and exercises. OBJECTIVES: To compare current field triage practices during both training and actual MCIs and identify any potential barriers to use. METHODS: During training sessions from November 2015 through March 2016, an anonymous survey was distributed to personnel in 3 distinct types of paid full-time EMS systems: Boston EMS (2-tiered, municipal third-service); Portland Fire Department (fire department-based ALS); and Stokes County EMS (county-based ALS) combined with Forsyth County EMS (county-based ALS). Data included personnel demographics and previous participation experiences in both drill and actual MCIs. Personnel with any prior MCI experience were queried regarding triage tag use and type of algorithm used. Data on barriers to use of triage tags and methods of communication of patient information were also collected. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. RESULTS: Overall survey participation rate was 77.9% (464/596). Among all respondents, 38.7% (179/464) reported participating in both a drill and actual MCI's. In these cases, respondents reported less likely use of triage tags during actual MCI's compared to drills, (34.1 vs. 91.8%, p < 0.01), less likely to complete full triage (16.3 vs. 68.7%, p < 0.01) and less likely to employ geographical triage (56.8 vs. 90.4% p < 0.01). Verbal report was the most common communication method to hospitals (93.1%) when triage tags were not used. Responders reported proximity to the hospital as the most common reason for not using triage tags during an actual MCI (29.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being a fundamental skill in MCI response, triage and other standard practices have not always been utilized in actual events despite training. EMS educators and disaster planners should consider strategies to better incorporate MCI practices during real world events.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 31 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Mass casualty incident (MCI) triage and the use of triage tags to assign treatment priorities are not fully implemented despite emergency medical services (EMS) personnel training during drills and exercises. OBJECTIVES: To compare current field triage practices during both training and actual MCIs and identify any potential barriers to use. METHODS: During training sessions from November 2015 through March 2016, an anonymous survey was distributed to personnel in 3 distinct types of paid full-time EMS systems: Boston EMS (2-tiered, municipal third-service); Portland Fire Department (fire department-based ALS); and Stokes County EMS (county-based ALS) combined with Forsyth County EMS (county-based ALS). Data included personnel demographics and previous participation experiences in both drill and actual MCIs. Personnel with any prior MCI experience were queried regarding triage tag use and type of algorithm used. Data on barriers to use of triage tags and methods of communication of patient information were also collected. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. RESULTS: Overall survey participation rate was 77.9% (464/596). Among all respondents, 38.7% (179/464) reported participating in both a drill and actual MCI's. In these cases, respondents reported less likely use of triage tags during actual MCI's compared to drills, (34.1 vs. 91.8%, p < 0.01), less likely to complete full triage (16.3 vs. 68.7%, p < 0.01) and less likely to employ geographical triage (56.8 vs. 90.4% p < 0.01). Verbal report was the most common communication method to hospitals (93.1%) when triage tags were not used. Responders reported proximity to the hospital as the most common reason for not using triage tags during an actual MCI (29.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being a fundamental skill in MCI response, triage and other standard practices have not always been utilized in actual events despite training. EMS educators and disaster planners should consider strategies to better incorporate MCI practices during real world events.

Key concepts: Triage, Mass-casualty incident, Medicine, Medical emergency, Emergency medical services, Demographics, Descriptive statistics, Emergency department

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Use of Field Triage in Disaster and Mass Casualty Incidents: A Survey of Current Practices by EMS Personnel — Research Paper | ScholarLens