Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DISASTER TRIAGE
Jamie Ranse and Kathryn Zeitz
OBJECTIVES:
➣
➣Understand the various disaster and emergency triage categories, processes, and systems; ➣Describe the
differences in triage for the prehospital and in-hospital environment; and
57
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
TRIAGE CATEGORIES
There is a diverse array of triage categories, titles of categories, and labels.1,8 In
the prehospital setting, and, at times, in the hospital, these categories generally
are themed as: (1) emergency or emergent; (2) urgent; (3) non-urgent; and (4)
dying or deceased. For emphasis and rapid identification purposes, categories
usually are defined visually by a color; red usually indicates the most emergent
category. The four, broad, common categories used for triage in the pre-hospital
setting, along with their associated color and a brief descriptor, are in Figure 5.1.
EMERGENCY
Severely injured, but recoverable, requiring immediate
assessment, simple resuscitation techniques, and
(RED)
transportation to a referral institution
58
DISASTER TRIAGE
Urgent (Yellow)
Casualties categorized as urgent are those who have sustained significant injuries
and will require transportation to a referral institution for a time-critical
intervention, such as surgery, but only after the transport of emergency (Red)
7,10
victims. Examples of casualties that may be categorized as urgent include
those with internal injuries or major fractures.
Non-urgent (Green)
Casualties in the non-urgent (Green) category traditionally are referred to as the
“walking wounded”; they have sustained minor injuries, but are stable and not
likely to require hospital admission. Their injuries are easily treated by first-aid
providers at the scene of the incident or at an established on-site med-ical
facility.7–10 Alternatively, these casualties can wait for further assessment and/or
management at a healthcare facility. It is unlikely that, if not treated in a timely
manner, these casualties’ injuries/illnesses will result in disability or per-manent
damage. Examples of casualties that may be categorized as non-urgent include
casualties with soft-tissue injuries, stable fractures, or minor bleeding.
Deceased (Black)
Casualties in the deceased (Black) category are deceased or have such substan-
tial injuries that the expenditure of a great amount of human and physical
resources would not affect their likely poor outcome. In essence, these casual-ties
will not receive any treatment other than palliative care, if resources are
available. Casualties who are severely injured and not expected to survive are the
most difficult to assign, as doing so runs counter to the usual healthcare phi-
losophy of providing care to all. It is important to recognize that casualties placed
in this category are so severely injured that a large amount of medical resources
is required to resuscitate them; committing this amount of resources to these
patients who have a limited chance of survival removes such resources from
those patients with potentially survivable injuries, thus reducing the latter
59
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
group’s chance of a good outcome. These casualties often become the responsi-
bility of the police authority and/or coroner.
DISASTER TRIAGE
Throughout the world, there is no consistent category system or language that
groups casualties in a consistent manner in disaster triage. Both the number and
type of categories in a triage system may differ between jurisdictions, organi-
zations, and medical response teams. This inconsistency in triage categories,
systems, and triage tag design can result in confusion during a multiple-casualty
incident, particularly when multiple agencies from multiple jurisdictions are
involved. In a survey of all of the eight Australian state and territory ambu-lance
11
services, Nocera and Garner identified the use of six different triage
taxonomies and five different triage methodologies and triage tag designs used
within one country. These findings highlight the need for the develop-ment of a
consistent dataset, as well as a consistent triage tag format and design. In
Australia, work has commenced in the development of a national standard to
address such issues.12
Triage Process
The triage process includes all assessment activities undertaken by healthcare
workers to determine the appropriate triage category for a casualty.6 The time to
perform the assessment varies from two–five minutes, depending on the number
and type of measurements performed. The triage process is complex and
influenced by a number of factors, such as the experience and training of the
clinician performing the triage, the perceived resources required, the ap-plication
of traditional triage processes, such as whether or not to use triage tags/cards, and
the age of the casualty.
The provision of resources to casualties requires not only excellent clini-cal
judgment, but also ethical consideration.5,13 The distribution of resources is
undertaken to achieve one of the main concepts of triage — to do the great-est
good for the greatest number. Doing the greatest good for the greatest number is
a concept that implies that both human and physical resources must be shared by
all casualties to ensure that the largest number of casualties possible survive the
event with optimal outcomes.14
The age of the casualty may influence triage decision-making, either con-
sciously or subconsciously. This was demonstrated in a study of ambulance
paramedics regarding the care of casualties in various multiple-casualty situ-
6
ations. The participants’ responses indicated that ambulance paramedics assess
and manage younger casualties first, when compared to older casualties with the
same presenting condition.
The triage process occurs multiple times throughout the disaster situa-tion,
commonly beginning prior to contact with any casualties, progressing to
60
DISASTER TRIAGE
the on-site assessment and management of the casualty, and repeated at vari-ous
points during the casualty’s journey through the healthcare system (Figure
5.2).1,6
Pre-casualty Contact
In a multiple-casualty incident, the triage process begins prior to contact with any
1
casualty. This is highlighted by Robertson-Steel who describes the first stage of
triage as the assessment of the situation and required resources. Com-monly, this
phase is undertaken from a distance and is based on the healthcare professionals’
experience of similar situations. Arbon et al 6 support this notion and suggest
that the triage process commences with the pre-event stage, prior to any contact
with a casualty. It is in this stage that clinicians delineate their roles and consider
both the required and available resources.
TRIAGE TRIAGE
At the Scene
The on-site casualty sorting process involves classifying casualties using pre-
7
determined criteria scales to assess their healthcare urgency. The urgency of
each casualty’s condition is rated and classified into one of the categories dis-
cussed earlier.
Triage is an ongoing process: casualties will be re-evaluated and re-triaged
frequently.8,15 It is reasonable to expect that a casualty’s condition will improve
61
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
62
DISASTER TRIAGE
63
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
the care of other casualties that do require high-level care and may delay the time
to definitive care, such as surgery, for these casualties.19,20
TRIAGE SYSTEMS
Disaster triage systems are designed for use in large, multi-casualty events where the
human and/or physical resources required to care for everyone at a normal level of
response is impossible. Several triage systems have been developed to assist in the
application of triage principles. These systems use various criteria to aid decision-
making regarding the most appropriate triage category for the patient, and her/his
1,7,8,10,21
priority for treatment. It is important to note that there are no published
data on the validity and accuracy of the various existing and modified triage
22
systems. Two examples of triage systems include the Sieve and Sort system and
10
the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) system.
Priority 3
Walking? Yes (Delayed)
No
Airway? No Dead
Yes
<10/minute Priority 1
Respiratory Rate or
>29/minute (Immediate)
10–29/minute
>2 seconds
Priority 2
Capillary Refill Time <2 seconds
(Urgent)
0 3 0 0 0 0
Table 5.1: Revised Trauma Score (RTS). Total score = the sum of the scores from the Glasgow
Coma Scale Score, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate (range 0–12)24
A low Revised Trauma Score (RTS) is associated with high morbidity and
mortality.23 Using the calculated RTS, casualties are allocated to one of three
priorities for assessment and management (Figure 5.4).25
65
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
Recently, the various pre- and in-hospital triage categories discussed in this
chapter have been implemented throughout the sort aspect of the Triage Sieve
and Sort triage system instead of using the RTS.
PRIORITY 3
RTS 12–14 (Management after Treating Priorities
1 and 2)
PRIORITY 3
RTS 10–11 (Management after Treating Priorities
1 and 2)
Priority 1
RTS 1–9 (Immediate Treatment)
RTS 0 DECEASED
START Triage
The Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment/or Transport (START) Triage system emerged
in California in the 1990s with a specific focus on field and multiple-casualty triage.
START Triage differs from Triage Sieve and Sort in that it focuses on the evaluation of
the casualty’s respiratory, circulatory, and neurological status, rather than on the
9,21
casualty’s airway, respiratory, and circulatory status (Figure 5.5).
The three goals of START triage are: (1) to sort injured persons based on
probable needs for immediate care; (2) to give brief, essential, life-saving
1
interventions; and (3) to recognize futility.
START triage is not only about casualty assessment, but about undertaking
minimal life-saving procedures, such as simple airway maneuvers, hemorrhage
control, and appropriate positioning of the casualty based on their illness or
injury (e.g., positioning the casualty with breathing difficulties in the Fowler’s
position, or placing the casualty with signs of hypovolemic shock in a supine
position with their legs elevated). The advantage of the START triage system is
that it can be used by all levels of responders and, in particular, can be simpli-
fied for use by civilians.
66
DISASTER TRIAGE
Yes
Can Patient Walk? Delayed Care
Yes
Is Patient Breathing?
No
No Yes
Immediate Care
Assess Mental
Status.
Can Patient
Follow Commands?
No Yes
67
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
Figure 5.6: Triage algorithms based on Pediatric Triage Tape measurements of a child’s length from
head to heel. (A=50–80 centimeters; B=80 – 100 centimeters; C=100 – 140 centimeters; min =
minute; sec = second; bpm = beats per minute)
68
DISASTER TRIAGE
and triaging of casualties over many hours or days.15 The system includes a sec-
ondary triage system termed Secondary Assessment of Victim Endpoint. In the
anticipation that during a disaster, triage may occur over many days, and that the
transportation of casualties to an appropriate medical facility may be delayed, the
Secondary Assessment of Victim Endpoint uses various sources of informa-tion
— such as trauma statistics/scores, age, and pre-existing morbidities — to assist
in the determination of which casualties would benefit most from the lim-ited
available resources. It is this aspect of the triage system that extends beyond the
application of the previously described START triage system.15
Emotional responses, as well as inexperience in assessing injured infants and
children, can interfere with the effective triage of children in a mass-casualty
event. Triage systems based on adult physiological parameters are inappropri-ate
for use in assessing injury severity and prioritizing the care and treatment of
pediatric casualties. For this reason, the Triage Sieve and the START triage sys-
tems have been modified for use in the pediatric population in an
emergency/mass casualty situation.
The Pediatric Triage Tape is an adjunct to the Triage Sieve system.26 The
Pe-diatric Triage Tape applies a principle similar to that of the Broselow
Pediatric Emergency Tape, which uses an infant’s or child’s length to calculate
drug dosage and equipment size for pediatric resuscitation.28 Based on
normative values that relate a child’s height (length) to its weight and age, the
Pediatric Triage Tape correlates a child’s measured length to normal values of
the physi-ological parameters assessed with Triage Sieve. The tape is a vinyl,
waterproof, measurement tool that is placed alongside a supine, pediatric
casualty, from head to heel, to determine his/her length. The tape is divided into
four seg-ments: (1) 50–80 centimeters; (2) 80–100 centimeters; (3) 100–140
centimeters; and (4) >140 centimeters. Each segment or block contains an
appropriate Triage Sieve physiological algorithm. Children >140 centimeters in
length or >10 years of age are triaged as adults. If the child is walking about (the
first assessment in the Triage Sieve system), use of the tape is not needed unless
warranted by a change in the child’s condition. Assessing mobility in
infants/children not walking is performed by determining the child’s alertness
and movement of limbs. The respiratory rate is counted for 15 seconds and
multiplied by four, and the capillary refill time is measured by applying thumb
pressure for three to seven seconds to the forehead or mid-sternum of the infant
29
or child. Figure 5.6 illustrates the Pediatric Triage Tape algorithms based on
the child’s meas-ured length.
JumpSTART is a modified version of the START triage system developed in
1995 to triage pediatric casualties between 1 and 8 years of age.27 In addition to
the inclusion of pediatric vital signs references for the clinician, JumpSTART
also directs responders to give rescue breaths to pediatric casual-
69
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
Able to Walk?
(No) (Yes) SECONDARY
Open Airway
TRIAGE
Breathing?
IMMEDIATE
(Yes) (No) Position Upper Breathing?
Airway (Yes) (No)
Palpable Pulse?
(Yes) (No) DEAD
5 Rescue Breaths
DEAD
Breathing Apneic
IMMEDIATE
Respiratory Rate:
15–45/min <15 or >45/min IMMEDIATE
Palpable Pulse?
(Yes) (No) IMMEDIATE
Alert, Verbal, Appropriate
Response to Pain?
(Yes) (No) IMMEDIATE
DELAYED
ties who are apneic but who have evidence of peripheral circulation. The
JumpSTART triage algorithm is depicted in Figure 5.7.
Triage Tags
Triage tags or triage cards are visual tools that are used to support triage systems and
assist in the identification by other clinicians of a casualty’s allocated triage catego-
6,9,21
ry. Triage tags provide responders with a visual cue to determine the next step
in prioritizing casualties for assessment and management. Additionally, triage tags
pro-vide responders — such as nurses, paramedics, medical officers, and first-aid
respon-ders — a place to document their assessment and any interventions provided.
Various triage tag designs exist; however, all include basic data, such as the
casu-alty’s vital signs, location of injury or illness, critical interventions, and ongoing
treatments, such as medications and intravenous fluids. (Figures 5.8A and 5.8B).
Commonly, triage tags are numbered and are secured directly to a casualty, and not
to his/her clothing. The triage tag number is recorded and given to the Incident
Commander to assist in record-keeping and in determining resource requirements.
70
DISASTER TRIAGE
Figure 5.8A: Triage tag example (front) Figure 5.8B: Triage tag example (back)
ing with multiple-casualty triage at the scene of motor vehicular accidents. This
study revealed that it was common for triage tags not to be used based on the
concerns that: (1) they hindered fast and effective assessment and management of
casualties, particularly when re-triaging casualties; and (2) it takes consider-able
time to access the tag, write on it, fold it, and replace it before moving on to the
next casualty. The alternative method involves memorizing the casualty’s
injury/illness and response to management. However, participants stated that
when “more than a handful” of casualties existed, or when there were too many
casualties to permit memorization, they would use triage tags.
IN-HOSPITAL TRIAGE
Once casualties arrive at the receiving healthcare facility, they undergo an
extensive triage re-assessment.1 This process commonly is undertaken by an ED
nurse and is similar to that of triaging in the prehospital setting, with an aim to
determine healthcare priorities based on the casualty’s current condi-tion and
available resources.
Enormous pressures are placed on the hospital to manage large numbers of
casualties effectively. In these circumstances, the in-hospital triage categories may be
applied in a reverse order. This is termed reverse triage and originally was used
during wartime when soldiers with minimal injuries were treated before those with
31
severe injuries in order to return them to the battlefield more quickly. Although
this is not the aim of reverse triage in the civilian hospital environment,
71
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
the principle of treating less injured victims first has some applicability. 31 For
example, casualties with a low acuity level are likely to be discharged and
advised to seek medical aid at a later point in time, while casualties categorized
as high acuity would be treated promptly. The simple, but fast and effective
management of casualties in these categories may prevent increased morbidity or
mortality. Casualties who, under normal circumstances, would be categorized as
a Priority or Category 1, would be triaged reversely and, thus, treated last, as it
could be perceived that they would require extensive amounts of human and
physical resources to appropriately manage their injury and/or illness. In essence,
reverse triage serves to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
Similar to prehospital triage categories and systems, in-hospital triage categories
4
and systems can differ between hospitals and jurisdictions. Institutions generally use
a three-, four-, or five-level triage classification system. Studies suggest that the five-
level triage classification is associated with a high degree of accuracy and inter-rater
32
reliability. All five-level triage classification systems use the number “1” to
represent patients with the highest acuity, i.e., those patients requiring a time-criti-cal
intervention, and the number “5” to represent those with the lowest level of acu-ity,
2
i.e., those not requiring a time-critical intervention. Examples of five-level, in-
hospital, triage classification systems include the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS)
used in Australia and New Zealand; the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS)
used in Canada; the Manchester Triage System used in the United Kingdom; and the
4,33
Emergency Severity Index (ESI) used in the United States.
1 Immediate
2 10 minutes
3 30 minutes
4 60 minutes
5 120 minutes
72
DISASTER TRIAGE
2 Emergent 15 minutes
3 Urgent 30 minutes
Less urgent
4 60 minutes
(semi-urgent)
5 Non-urgent 120 minutes
Similar to the ATS, triage is performed by a triage nurse who determines that
“This patient should wait for medical assessment and/or management no longer
than _x_ minutes”. Additionally, this triage scale uses modifiers to assist the
triage nurse in discriminating a person’s presentation among the triage lev-els.
First-order modifiers include vital signs, mechanism of injury, and pain severity,
whereas second-order modifiers are complaint specific. Furthermore, the CTAS
allows for a person’s allocated triage category to be escalated if the person’s wait
time has extended beyond his/her assigned triage level maximum waiting time.
For example, if a person has been allocated a triage level 5, after 120 minutes of
wait time, his/her triage level may be escalated to a 4.
A pediatric version of the CTAS was implemented in 2001 with specific ref-
erence to newborns, infants, children, and adolescents.35 Similar to the adult
version of the CTAS, there are two sets of modifiers to this triage scale. First-
order modifiers include physiological observations; secondary modifiers include
36
pain, mechanism of injury, glucose level, and temperature. Both the CTAS and
the Pediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale utilize the same descriptors and
maximum waiting time as described in Table 5.3.
73
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
Triage Work Group and is used widely throughout the United Kingdom. With
this system, a triage category is assigned based on the casualty’s signs and
symptoms rather than on a real or potential diagnosis. The signs and symptoms
that are assessed with this system include: life threat, pain, hemor-rhage, level of
consciousness, temperature, and acuity.4
Intubated/Apneic/Pulseless?
or Yes 1
Unresponsive?
No
High-risk Situation?
or
Confused/Lethargic/Disoriented? Yes
or
Severe Pain, Distress?
No 2
How Many Different Resources
are Needed?
None One Many
H R S
No
3
Figure 5.9: Version 2 Emergency Severity Index33 (m = months; y = years; HR =
heart rate; RR = respiratory rate; SaO2 = arterial oxygen saturation)
74
DISASTER TRIAGE
75
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
eral medical/surgical ward and those who have a chronic illness with a poor
39
prognosis. The selection criterion initially is based on the casualty’s respira-
tory or hemodynamic parameters and, secondly, on their sequential organ fail-ure
assessment (SOFA) score. The calculated SOFA score is determined by the
degree of dysfunction of the respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, hepatic,
renal, and hematological systems. Although, theoretically, this protocol has been
validated, it has had minimal testing in real-life situations. In an analysis of
intensive care unit admissions in one tertiary teaching hospital during 2007, the
retrospective application of these criteria would have resulted in only nine
admissions to the general intensive care unit compared to the 219 casualty
41
admissions that actually occurred during the period studied. The benefit of
using such defined criteria for admission to the unit is that many intensive care
unit beds would be available for management of the long-term surge capacity
associated with an epidemic.
TRIAGE ISSUES
Triage education and training underpins the triage decisions of healthcare
professionals. To date, triage research has focused on the physiological basis of
9
triage scales or the comparisons of the performances of healthcare profes-
18
sionals using triage scales. There is limited evidence regarding the applica-tion
of current theoretical models in real-world triage practice and outcomes.
Anecdotally, it is believed that illustrative triage protocols, guidelines, and
algorithms are useful for the beginning practitioner; however, advanced prac-
titioners report that they tend not to use such tools, but, rather, rely on a
6,13
combination of experience, insight, and education. This experience is in-
formed not only by their exposure to disasters, but a variety of challenging
situations, including managing complex clinical casualties, their involvement in
multi-casualty situations, and working in stressful environments. There is a need
for research of the relationship between triage practice, training and education,
triage theories, and outcomes.6 The training and education of triage techniques
are not standardized. This was demonstrated in a study that highlighted
substantial variability in the training and education preparedness of nurses prior
to undertaking the roles and responsibilities of triage.42
No two disasters are the same and no two triage decisions will be the same.
Due to the diversity of situations, casualties, and responders, the deci-sions and
actions undertaken in response to disasters will differ; therefore, triage response
must be flexible. In reflecting on decisions made or actions taken, it is easy to be
critical of an individual’s response; debriefing of those involved in the situation
is extremely important. However, debriefing ses-sions must be in the context of
lessons learned from individual responses rather than in the form of criticisms.
76
DISASTER TRIAGE
CONCLUSION
Triage is a challenging and complex process. Disaster triage relies on sorting casu-
alties and setting priorities to facilitate access to appropriate care and maximize
available healthcare resources. Central to the triage process is the classification of
casualties based on the severity of their injuries, thereby ensuring the most effec-tive
response. Triage in the disaster setting occurs in three phases: (1) pre-casualty
contact; (2) at the scene of the incident; and (3) upon arrival at the receiving hos-
pital. Although there are a number of triage systems to support clinician deci-sion-
making, there is a dearth of rigorous research regarding “best practice” triage
systems, particularly in the disaster or mass-casualty setting.
CLINICAL TRIAGE:
THE LONDON BOMBINGS, ON 7 JULY 2005
In July 2005, during the morning rush hour, three bombs exploded simultaneously in the
London underground system. This was followed shortly thereafter by a bomb explosion
on a London bus. Using the Triage Sieve and Sort method, over 700 victims were
triaged, treated at the scene, and subsequently transported to hospital emergency
departments within four hours of the explosions.
The London Ambulance Service personnel assessed injured persons at the scene for priority
of treatment and for transportation to emergency departments. Using Triage Sieve and Sort
tags, the injured were transported to five different facilities.
Jason Killen
The London Ambulance Service used triage sieve and sort cards (SMART Triage tags). These cards allow clinicians to base triage decisions on clinical findings and observations rather than the physical appearance
of any patient. The ambulances of the London Ambulance Service carry a number of triage cards, thereby permitting responders in the first ambulance at the scene to commence the triage process. During the July
2005 bombings, insufficient triage cards were available on the first ambulances at each scene, due to the high number of people involved. While additional cards were mobilized to the multiple scenes, Ambulance
paramedics and emergency medical technicians continued the triage process without the additional triage sort element.
REFERENCES
1. Roberts on-Steel I: Evolu tion of triage s ys tems . Emer g Med J 2006;23 :154–155.
2. Considine J, LeCasseur SA, Villanueva E: The Australasian triage scale: Examining emergency
department nurses’ performance using computer and paper scenarios. Ann Emerg Med
2004;44(5):516–523.
3. Goransson K, Ehrenberg A, Marklund B, Ehnfors M: Accuracy and concordance of nurses in
emergency department triage. Scand J Caring Sci 2005;19:432–438.
77
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER NURSING
78
DISASTER TRIAGE
34. Australasian College of Emergency Medicine: P06 Policy on The Australasian Triage Scale. 2000.
Available at http://acem.org.au/media/policies_and_guidelines/P06_Aust_Triage_Scale_-_
Nov_2000.pdf.
35. Warren DW, Jarvis A, LeBlanc L, Gravel J, and the CTAS National Working Group (NWG):
Revisions to the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale Paediatric Guidelines (PaedCTAS). Can J
Emerg Med 2008;10(3):224–232.
36. Bullard MJ, Unger B, Spence J, Grafstein E, and the CTAS National Working Group: Revisions to
the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) adult guidelines.
Can J Emerg Med 2008;10(2):136–142.
37. Gottschalk SB, Wood D, DeVries S, Wallis LA, Bruijns S: The cape triage score: A new triage
system South Africa. Proposal from the cape triage group. Emerg Med J 2006;23:149–153.
38. Richardson D, Kumar S: Emergency response to the Canberra bushfires. Med J Australia
2004;181(1):40-42.
39. Christian MD, Hawryluck L, Wax RS, et al: Development of a triage protocol for critical care
during an influenza pandemic. Can Med Assoc J 2006;175(11):1377–1381.
40. Talmor D, Jones A, Rubinson L, Howell MD, Shapiro NI: Simple triage scoring system predicting
death and the need for critical care resources for use during epidemics. Crit Care Med
2007; 35(5): 1251–1256.
41. Bailey A, Leditschke A, Ranse J, Grove K: Impact of a pandemic triage tool on intensive care
admissions. Crit Care Med 2008;12(s2):349 [abstract].
42. Kelly A, Richardson D: Training for the role of triage in Australasia. Emerg Med
2001;13:230–232.
79