47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validation of secondary triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents : A simulation-based study—English version Translated title: Validierung innerklinischer Sichtungsalgorithmen für den Massenanfall von Verletzten : Eine simulationsbasierte Studie

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In the event of a mass casualty incident (MCI), the situation-related shortage of medical resources does not end when the patients are transported from the scene of the incident. Consequently, an initial triage is required in the receiving hospitals. In the first step, the aim of this study was to create a reference patient vignette set with defined triage categories. This allowed a computer-aided evaluation of the diagnostic quality of triage algorithms for MCI situations in the second step.

          Methods

          A total of 250 case vignettes validated in practice were entered into a multistage evaluation process by initially 6 and later 36 triage experts. This algorithm—independent expert evaluation of all vignettes—served as the gold standard for analyzing the diagnostic quality of the following triage algorithms: Manchester triage system (MTS module MCI), emergency severity index (ESI), Berlin triage algorithm (BER), the prehospital algorithms PRIOR and mSTaRT, and two project algorithms from a cooperation between the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan—intrahospital Jordanian-German project algorithm (JorD) and prehospital triage algorithm (PETRA). Each patient vignette underwent computerized triage through all specified algorithms to obtain comparative test quality outcomes.

          Results

          Of the original 250 vignettes, a triage reference database of 210 patient vignettes was validated independently of the algorithms. These formed the gold standard for comparison of the triage algorithms analyzed. Sensitivities for intrahospital detection of patients in triage category T1 ranged from 1.0 (BER, JorD, PRIOR) to 0.57 (MCI module MTS). Specificities ranged from 0.99 (MTS and PETRA) to 0.67 (PRIOR). Considering Youden’s index, BER (0.89) and JorD (0.88) had the best overall performance for detecting patients in triage category T1. Overtriage was most likely with PRIOR, and undertriage with the MCI module of MTS. Up to a decision for category T1, the algorithms require the following numbers of steps given as the median and interquartile range (IQR): ESI 1 (1–2), JorD 1 (1–4), PRIOR 3 (2–4), BER 3 (2–6), mSTaRT 3 (3–5), MTS 4 (4–5) and PETRA 6 (6–8). For the T2 and T3 categories the number of steps until a decision and the test quality of the algorithms are positively interrelated.

          Conclusion

          In the present study, transferability of preclinical algorithm-based primary triage results to clinical algorithm-based secondary triage results was demonstrated. The highest diagnostic quality for secondary triage was provided by the Berlin triage algorithm, followed by the Jordanian-German project algorithm for hospitals, which, however, also require the most algorithm steps until a decision.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version of this paper (10.1007/s00101-023-01292-2) contains the collection of additional figures S1 and S2 mentioned in the text and tables S1-S8.

          Translated abstract

          Hintergrund

          Die situationsbedingte Verknappung medizinischer Ressourcen endet bei einem Massenanfall von Verletzen (MANV) lageabhängig nicht mit dem Abtransport der Patienten von der Einsatzstelle. Folglich ist in den aufnehmenden Kliniken eine Eingangssichtung erforderlich. Ziel dieser Studie war es im ersten Schritt einen Referenz‐Patientenvignettensatz mit definierten Sichtungskategorien zu erstellen. Dies erlaubte im zweiten Schritt, die rechnergestützte Evaluation der diagnostischen Güte klinischer Sichtungsalgorithmen für MANV-Lagen.

          Methodik

          In einen mehrstufigen Bewertungsprozess durch zunächst sechs, später 36 Sichtungsexperten gingen 250 in der Übungspraxis validierte Fallvignetten ein. Diese Algorithmen – unabhängige Expertenbewertung aller Vignetten – dienten als Goldstandard für die Analyse der diagnostischen Güte der folgenden innerklinischen Algorithmen: Manchester Triage System (MTS Modul MANV), Emergency severity Index (ESI), Berliner Sichtungsalgorithmus (BER), die prähospitalen Algorithmen PRIOR und mSTaRT, sowie zwei Projektalgorithmen aus einer Kooperation des Bundesamts für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK) mit dem Haschemitischen Königreich Jordanien – innerklinischer jordanisch-deutscher Projektalgorithmus (JorD) und prähospitaler Sichtungsalgorithmus (PETRA). Jede Patientenvignette durchlief computergestützt eine Sichtung durch alle angegeben Algorithmen, um vergleichend die Testgüte für alle Verfahren zu erheben.

          Ergebnisse

          Von den ursprünglich 250 Vignetten konnte eine Sichtungsreferenzdatenbank mit 210 Patientenvignetten algorithmenunabhängig validiert werden. Diese bildeten den Goldstandard für den Vergleich der analysierten Sichtungsalgorithmen. Die Sensitivitäten für die innerklinische Detektion von Patienten der Sichtungskategorie I lagen zwischen 1,0 (BER, JorD, PRIOR) und 0,57 (MANV-Modul MTS). Die Spezifitäten lagen zwischen 0,99 (MTS und PETRA) und 0,67 (PRIOR). Gemessen am Youden-Index ergab sich bei BER (0,89) und JorD (0,88) die beste Gesamtperformance für die Detektion von Patienten der Sichtungskategorie I. Eine Übertriage ist am ehesten bei PRIOR, eine Untertriage beim MANV-Modul von MTS zu erwarten. Bis zum Entscheid SK I benötigen die Algorithmen folgende Schrittanzahlen (Median [IQR]): ESI 1 [1–2]; JorD 1 [1–4]; PRIOR 3 [2–4]; BER 3 [2–6]; mSTaRT 3 [3–5]; MTS 4 [4–5]; PETRA 6 [6–8]. Für die SK II und III besteht ein positiver Zusammenhang zwischen der Schrittanzahl bis zum Entscheid und der Testgüte.

          Schlussfolgerung

          In der vorliegenden Studie konnte eine Übertragbarkeit prähospitaler algorithmenbasierter Vorsichtungsergebnisse auf die Ergebnisse klinischer Algorithmen gezeigt werden. Die höchste diagnostische Güte für die innerklinischen Sichtung lieferten BER und JorD, die allerdings auch die meisten Algorithmusschritte bis zum Entscheid benötigen.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Index for rating diagnostic tests

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book Chapter: not found

            Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Modern triage in the emergency department.

              Because the volume of patient admissions to an emergency department (ED) cannot be precisely planned, the available resources may become overwhelmed at times ("crowding"), with resulting risks for patient safety. The aim of this study is to identify modern triage instruments and assess their validity and reliability. Review of selected literature retrieved by a search on the terms "emergency department" and "triage." Emergency departments around the world use different triage systems to assess the severity of incoming patients' conditions and assign treatment priorities. Our study identified four such instruments: the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS), the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), the Manchester Triage System (MTS), and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Triage instruments with 5 levels are superior to those with 3 levels in both validity and reliability (p<0.01). Good to very good reliability has been shown for the best-studied instruments, CTAS and ESI (κ-statistics: 0.7 to 0.95), while ATS and MTS have been found to be only moderately reliable (κ-statistics: 0.3 to 0.6). MTS and ESI are both available in German; of these two, only the ESI has been validated in German-speaking countries. Five-level triage systems are valid and reliable methods for assessment of the severity of incoming patients' conditions by nursing staff in the emergency department. They should be used in German emergency departments to assign treatment priorities in a structured and dependable fashion.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Axel.Heller@uni-a.de
                Journal
                Anaesthesiologie
                Anaesthesiologie
                Die Anaesthesiologie
                Springer Medizin (Heidelberg )
                2731-6858
                2731-6866
                12 October 2023
                12 October 2023
                2023
                : 72
                : Suppl 1
                : 1-9
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, ( https://ror.org/03p14d497) Stenglinstraße 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.412468.d, ISNI 0000 0004 0646 2097, Interdisciplinary Emergency Department, Medical Faculty, , University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, ; Kiel, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Disaster preparedness and Emergency Planning, Charité, ( https://ror.org/001w7jn25) Berlin, Germany
                [4 ]Division III.3 Protection of Health, German Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, ( https://ror.org/05t259f86) Bonn, Germany
                [5 ]Medical Directorate, Dresden Municipal Hospital, Dresden, Germany
                [6 ]Clinic and Polyclinic for Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig AöR, ( https://ror.org/028hv5492) Leipzig, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6144-3874
                Article
                1292
                10.1007/s00101-023-01292-2
                10692258
                37823925
                938c4c17-0b2c-45f1-aa49-791038081cfd
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 4 April 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Universität Augsburg (3144)
                Categories
                Originalien
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2023

                katastrophenmedizin,notfallvorsorge,innerklinische sichtung,krankenhaus alarm- und einsatzplan,notaufnahme,disaster management,emergency preparedness,secondary triage,hospital alarm and operation plan,emergency department

                Comments

                Comment on this article