Mass-casualty triage: time for an evidence-based approach.

Mass-casualty triage has developed from a wartime necessity to a civilian tool to ensure that constrained medical resources are directed at achieving the greatest good for the most number of people. Several primary and secondary triage tools have been developed, including Simple Treatment and Rapid Transport (START), JumpSTART, Care Flight Triage, Triage Sieve, Sacco Triage Method, Secondary Assessment of Victim Endpoint (SAVE), and Pediatric Triage Tape. Evidence to support the use of one triage algorithm over another is limited, and the development of effective triage protocols is an important research priority. The most widely recognized mass-casualty triage algorithms in use today are not evidence-based, and no studies directly address these issues in the mass-casualty setting. Furthermore, no studies have evaluated existing mass-casualty triage algorithms regarding ease of use, reliability, and validity when biological, chemical, or radiological agents are introduced. Currently, the lack of a standardized mass-casualty triage system that is well validated, reliable, and uniformly accepted, remains an important gap. Future research directed at triage is recognized as a necessity, and the development of a practical, universal, triage algorithm that incorporates requirements for decontamination or special precautions for infectious agents would facilitate a more organized mass-casualty medical response.

Healthcare worker competencies for disaster training.

BACKGROUND: Although training and education have long been accepted as integral to disaster preparedness, many currently taught practices are neither evidence-based nor standardized. The need for effective evidence-based disaster training of healthcare staff at all levels, including the development of standards and guidelines for training in the multi-disciplinary health response to major events, has been designated by the disaster response community as a high priority. We describe the application of systematic evidence-based consensus building methods to derive educational competencies and objectives in criteria-based preparedness and response relevant to all hospital healthcare workers. METHODS: The conceptual development of cross-cutting competencies incorporated current evidence through a systematic consensus building process with the following steps: (1) review of peer-reviewed literature on relevant content areas and educational theory; (2) structured review of existing competencies, national level courses and published training objectives; (3) synthesis of new cross-cutting competencies; (4) expert panel review; (5) refinement of new competencies and; (6) development of testable terminal objectives for each competency using similar processes covering requisite knowledge, attitudes, and skills. RESULTS: Seven cross-cutting competencies were developed: (1) Recognize a potential critical event and implement initial actions; (2) Apply the principles of critical event management; (3) Demonstrate critical event safety principles; (4) Understand the institutional emergency operations plan; (5) Demonstrate effective critical event communications; (6) Understand the incident command system and your role in it; (7) Demonstrate the knowledge and skills needed to fulfill your role during a critical event. For each of the cross-cutting competencies, comprehensive terminal objectives are described. CONCLUSION: Cross-cutting competencies and objectives developed through a systematic evidence-based consensus building approach may serve as a foundation for future hospital healthcare worker training and education in disaster preparedness and response.