Does START triage work? An outcomes assessment after a disaster.
Annals of Emergency Medicine · 2009-02-05 · Observational study
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The mass casualty triage system known as simple triage and rapid treatment (START) has been widely used in the United States since the 1980s. However, no outcomes assessment has been conducted after a disaster to determine whether assigned triage levels match patients' actual clinical status. Researchers hypothesize that START achieves at least 90% sensitivity and specificity for each triage level and ensures that the most critical patients are transported first to area hospitals. METHODS: The performance of START was evaluated at a train crash disaster in 2003. Patient field triage categories and scene times were obtained from county reports. Patient medical records were then reviewed at all receiving hospitals. Victim arrival times were obtained and correct triage categories determined a priori using a combination of the modified Baxt criteria and hospital admission. Field and outcomes-based triage categories were compared, defining the appropriateness of each triage assignment. RESULTS: Investigators reviewed 148 records at 14 receiving hospitals. Field triage designations comprised 22 red (immediate), 68 yellow (delayed), and 58 green (minor) patients. Outcomes-based designations found 2 red, 26 yellow, and 120 green patients. Seventy-nine patients were overtriaged, 3 were undertriaged, and 66 patients' outcomes matched their triage level. No triage level met both the 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity requirement set forth in the hypothesis, although red was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 16% to 100%) and green was 89.3% specific (95% CI 72% to 98%). The Obuchowski statistic was 0.81, meaning that victims from a higher-acuity outcome group had an 81% chance of assignment to a higher-acuity triage category. The median arrival time for red patients was more than 1 hour earlier than the other patients. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates poor agreement between triage levels assigned by START at a train crash and a priori outcomes criteria for each level. START ensured acceptable levels of undertriage (100% red sensitivity and 89% green specificity) but incorporated a substantial amount of overtriage. START proved useful in prioritizing transport of the most critical patients to area hospitals first.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Mass casualty triage · Time intervals · Triage instruments
Related articles
- Virtual Reality Simulation for Assessment of Hemorrhage Control and SALT Triage Performance: A Comparison of Prehospital to In-Hospital Emergency Responders. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2025)
- [Diagnostic quality of triage algorithms for mass casualty incidents]. (Anaesthesist, 2017)
- Factors affecting the accuracy of prehospital triage application and prehospital scene time in simulated mass casualty incidents. (Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2024)
- Comparison of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment system versus the Prehospital Advanced Triage Model in multiple-casualty events. (Emergencias, 2018)
- Prehospital Triage by Lay Person First Responders: A Scoping Review and Proposal for a new Prehospital Triage Tool. (Disaster Med Public Health Prep, 2022)
- Emergency service experience following the terrorist attack in Mogadishu, 14 October 2017, a scene of lay rescuer triage. (Am J Emerg Med, 2021)