The goal of disaster triage at both the prehospital and in-hospital level is to maximize resources and optimize patient outcomes. Of the disaster-specific triage methods developed to guide health care providers, the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) algorithm has become the most popular system world-wide. Despite its appeal and global application, the accuracy and effectiveness of the START protocol is not well-known.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was two-fold: (1) to estimate overall accuracy, under-triage, and over-triage of the START method when used by providers across a variety of backgrounds; and (2) to obtain specific accuracy for each of the four START categories: red, yellow, green, and black.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted that searched Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Global Health (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Compendex (Engineering Village), SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO. The results were expanded by hand searching of journals, reference lists, and the grey literature. The search was executed in March 2020. The review considered the participants, interventions, context, and outcome (PICO) framework and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Accuracy outcomes are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as calculated using the binomial method. Pooled meta-analyses of accuracy outcomes using fixed and random effects models were calculated and the heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic.

Thirty-two studies were included in the review, most of which utilized a non-randomized study design (84%). Proportion of victims correctly triaged using START ranged from 0.27 to 0.99 with an overall triage accuracy of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.78). Proportion of over-triage was 0.14 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.17) while the proportion of under-triage was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.072 to 0.14). There was significant heterogeneity of the studies for all outcomes (P < .0001).

This meta-analysis suggests that START is not accurate enough to serve as a reliable disaster triage tool. Although the accuracy of START may be similar to other models of disaster triage, development of a more accurate triage method should be urgently pursued.

While the art and science of disaster triage continue to evolve, the education of the US health care student in matters pertaining to disaster preparedness and response remains stifled. Unfortunately, these students will be assuming major decision-making responsibilities regarding catastrophes that will be complicated by climate change, nuclear threats, global terrorism, and pandemics. Meanwhile, Sort, Assess, Life-Saving Interventions, Treatment, and/or Transport (SALT) triage is being advocated over the globally popular Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) algorithm for multiple reasons: (1) it’s an all-hazard approach; (2) it has four medical interventions; and (3) it has an additional triage color for victims with non-survivable injuries.

As present-day threats become more ominous and health care education emphasizes the needs of vulnerable populations and palliative care, the authors hypothesize that, when given a choice, health care students will prefer SALT triage.

A convenience sample of 218 interprofessional, disaster-naïve health care students received just-in-time, unbiased education on both START and SALT triage systems. Students then completed a survey asking them to decide which triage system they believe would be most effective in their community.

A total of 123 health care students (56.4%) preferred SALT while 95 (43.6%) preferred START; however, only the physician assistant students showed a statistically significantly preference (28 versus six, respectively; P=.042). Interestingly, there was also a statistically significant difference in preference by gender (Chi-square=5.02; P=.025) of the observed distribution versus expected distribution in SALT and START. The females preferred SALT (61.0%) while the males preferred START (55.9%).

Among those who preferred START, START being easier to learn was the most important reason cited. Among those who preferred SALT, the most important reason cited was that the number of patient triage categories seemed more logical, comprehensible, and consistent with traditional medical care.

While SALT’s preference among females and physician assistant students was based on the addition of medical interventions and the provision of palliative care, START’s preference was related to expediency. Based on this research, incorporating disaster concepts into US health care students’ curricula encourages thoughtful consideration among the future health care leaders about the most effective approach to triage care. It is critical that further research be completed to determine, without reservation, which triage system will not only save the most lives but provide the most humane care to victims.

Fink BN, Rega PP, Sexton ME, Wishner C. START versus SALT triage: which is preferred by the 21st century health care student? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(4):381–386

A high influx of patients during a mass-casualty incident (MCI) may disrupt patient flow in an already overcrowded emergency department (ED) that is functioning beyond its operating capacity. This pilot study examined the impact of a two-step ED triage model using Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) for pre-triage, followed by triage with the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), on patient flow during a MCI simulation exercise.

It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in time intervals nor patient volumes at each patient-flow milestone.

Physicians and nurses participated in a computer-based tabletop disaster simulation exercise. Physicians were randomized into the intervention group using START, then CTAS, or the control group using START alone. Patient-flow milestones including time intervals and patient volumes from ED arrival to triage, ED arrival to bed assignment, ED arrival to physician assessment, and ED arrival to disposition decision were compared. Triage accuracy was compared for secondary purposes.

There were no significant differences in the time interval from ED arrival to triage (mean difference 108 seconds; 95% CI, -353 to 596 seconds; P=1.0), ED arrival to bed assignment (mean difference 362 seconds; 95% CI, -1,269 to 545 seconds; P=1.0), ED arrival to physician assessment (mean difference 31 seconds; 95% CI, -1,104 to 348 seconds; P=0.92), and ED arrival to disposition decision (mean difference 175 seconds; 95% CI, -1,650 to 1,300 seconds; P=1.0) between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the volume of patients to be triaged (32% vs 34%; 95% CI for the difference -16% to 21%; P=1.0), assigned a bed (16% vs 21%; 95% CI for the difference -11% to 20%; P=1.0), assessed by a physician (20% vs 22%; 95% CI for the difference -14% to 19%; P=1.0), and with a disposition decision (20% vs 9%; 95% CI for the difference -25% to 4%; P=.34) between the two groups. The accuracy of triage was similar in both groups (57% vs 70%; 95% CI for the difference -15% to 41%; P=.46).

Experienced triage nurses were able to apply CTAS effectively during a MCI simulation exercise. A two-step ED triage model using START, then CTAS, had similar patient flow and triage accuracy when compared to START alone.

LeeJS, FrancJM. Impact of a Two-step Emergency Department Triage Model with START, then CTAS, on Patient Flow During a Simulated Mass-casualty Incident. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(4):1–7.