Limitations of Triage in Military Mass Casualty Response: A Case Series.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Mass casualty events (MASCALs) in the combat environment, which involve large numbers of casualties that overwhelm immediately available resources, are fundamentally chaotic and dynamic and inherently dangerous. Formal triage systems use diagnostic algorithms, colored markers, and four or more named categories. We hypothesized that formal triage systems are inadequately trained and practiced and too complex to successfully implement in true MASCAL events. This retrospective analysis evaluates the real-world application of triage systems in prehospital military MASCALs and other aspects of MASCAL management. METHODS: We surveyed Special Operations Forces (SOF) medics known to us who have participated in military prehospital MASCALs and analyzed them. Aggregated data describing the scope of the incidents, the use of formal triage algorithms and colored markers, the number of categories, and the interventions on scene were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and lessons learned were consolidated. RESULTS: From 1996 to 2022 we identified 29 MASCALs that were managed by military medics in the prehospital setting. There was a median of three providers (range 1-85) and 15 casualties (range 6-519) per event. Four or more formal triage categories were used in only one event. Colored markers and formal algorithms were not used. Life-saving interventions were performed in 27 of 29 (93%) missions and blood transfusions were performed in four (17%) MASCALs. The top lessons learned were 1) security and accountability are cornerstones of MASCAL management; 2) casualty movement is a priority; 3) intuitive triage categories are the default; 4) life-saving interventions are performed as time and tactics permit. CONCLUSION: Formal triage systems requiring the use of diagnostic algorithms, colored tags, and four or five categories are seldom implemented in real-world military prehospital MASCAL management. The training of field triage should be simplified and pragmatic, as exemplified by these instances.