AN AUSTRALIAN MASS CASUALTY INCIDENT TRIAGE SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE BASED UPON TRIAGE MISTAKES OF THE PAST: THE HOMEBUSH TRIAGE STANDARD

1999 ◽  
Vol 69 (8) ◽  
pp. 603-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antony Nocera ◽  
Alan Garner
2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (s1) ◽  
pp. s18-s19
Author(s):  
Brad Mitchell ◽  
Karen Hammad ◽  
Dana Aldwin

Introduction:We opened a national conference in Australia with a surprise mass casualty simulation scenario of a van versus multiple persons outside the conference venue. The purpose of this exercise was to increase awareness of, and preparation for, mass casualty incident (MCI) events for the conference delegates who were paramedics, emergency department nurses, and doctors.Aim:The aim of the research is to understand whether a surprise MCI simulation is a useful way to increase knowledge and motivate preparedness.Methods:A survey hosted on Qualtrics was circulated to delegates via email. The survey was designed by the research team and had 38 questions about demographics and respondents’ experience with MCIs, as well as their perceptions of the simulation exercise. The questions were a mixture of 5-point Likert scales, multiple choice, and short answers.Results:The majority of respondents were clinicians (n = 66, 76%) and those who worked in emergency departments or the prehospital setting (n = 75, 86%). While the majority had not responded to an MCI in the past 5 years (n = 67, 77%), more than half (n = 50, 57%) had undertaken MCI training during this time. Overall, a vast majority of respondents found the simulation to be a worthwhile exercise that increased knowledge and preparedness. An overwhelming majority also reported that the simulation was relevant to practice, of high quality, and a useful way to teach about major incidents.Discussion:Our surprise major incident simulation was a fun and effective way to raise awareness and increase knowledge in prehospital and emergency department clinicians about MCI response. This approach to simulation can be easily replicated at relatively low cost and is, therefore, a useful solution to training a group of multidisciplinary health professionals outside of the workplace.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-128 ◽  

ABSTRACTThere is a need for model uniform core criteria for mass casualty triage because disasters frequently cross jurisdictional lines and involve responders from multiple agencies who may be using different triage tools. These criteria (Tables 1-4) reflect the available science, but it is acknowledged that there are significant research gaps. When no science was available, decisions were formed by expert consensus derived from the available triage systems. The intent is to ensure that providers at a mass-casualty incident use triage methodologies that incorporate these core principles in an effort to promote interoperability and standardization. At a minimum, each triage system must incorporate the criteria that are listed below. Mass casualty triage systems in use can be modified using these criteria to ensure interoperability. The criteria include general considerations, global sorting, lifesaving interventions, and assignment of triage categories. The criteria apply only to providers who are organizing multiple victims in a discrete geographic location or locations, regardless of the size of the incident. They are classified by whether they were derived through available direct scientific evidence, indirect scientific evidence, expert consensus, and/or are used in multiple existing triage systems. These criteria address only primary triage and do not consider secondary triage. For the purposes of this document the term triage refers to mass-casualty triage and provider refers to any person who assigns primary triage categories to victims of a mass-casualty incident.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:125–128)


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
pp. s167-s167
Author(s):  
M. Raviolo ◽  
M. Bortolin ◽  
M. Vivalda ◽  
D. Bono

IntroductionAt this time, no triage method is considered better than another in comparison to the outcome of the casualties. It is important and useful to identify a triage method that can be used for both adults and children at the same time. It should consider the anatomical and physiological differences between adults, children, and infants.ObjectivesTo revise and adapt the current triage system in use in the Piemonte Emergency Medical Services for the first triage in a validated method that is effective for adults, children, and babies in order to unify and simplify the triage system.MethodsIn accordance with pediatricians, the “Triage Sieve” procedure and parameters were revised into a single method.ResultsSetting the height of the casualty was considered to be both quick and easy. In this revised method, all the casualties are classified with the sieve methods, but some changes have been introduced. Casualties with a stature < 59 cm are classified as infants, and are therefore priority T1 (red) in every case. Casualties > 60 cm but < 120 cm in stature are classified as children. Children with a respiratory rate < 15 or > 40 breaths per minute and a heart rate < 80 or > 160 beats per minute are classified as T1.ConclusionsChildren will probably be over-triaged in this method, but the authors do not consider that a substantial problem. This first triage system is simple and effective. But, it has not yet been tested effectively during an actual mass-casualty incident or disaster.


1980 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-231
Author(s):  
MARCEL KINSBOURNE
Keyword(s):  
The Past ◽  

1991 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 786-787
Author(s):  
Vicki L. Underwood
Keyword(s):  
The Past ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document