Triage at mass gatherings in Australia is commonly performed by staff members with first aid training. There have been no evaluations of the performance of first aid staff with respect to diagnostic accuracy or identification of presentations requiring ambulance transport to hospital.

It was hypothesized that triage decisions by first aid staff would be considered correct in at least 61% of presentations.

A retrospective audit of 1,048 presentations to a single supplier of event health care services in Australia was conducted. The presentations were assessed based on the first measured set of physiological parameters, and the primary triage decision was classified as “expected” if the primary and secondary triage classifications were the same or “not expected” if they differed. The performance of the two triage systems was compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis.

The expected decision was made by first aid staff in 674 (71%) of presentations. Under-triage occurred in 131 (14%) presentations and over-triage in 142 (15%) presentations. The primary triage strategy had an AUROC of 0.7644, while the secondary triage strategy had an AUROC of 0.6280, which was significantly different (P = .0199).

The results support the continued use of first aid trained staff members in triage roles at Australian mass gatherings. Triage tools should be simple, and the addition of physiological variables to improve the sensitivity of triage tools is not recommended because such an approach does not improve the discriminatory capacity of the tools.

To compare emergency department triage nurses’ time to triage and accuracy of a simulated mass casualty incident (MCI) population using a computerized version of CTAS or START systems.

This pilot study was a prospective trial using a convenience sample. A total of 20 ED triage nurses, 10 in each arm of the study, were recruited. The paper-based questionnaire contained nine simulated MCI vignettes. An expert panel arrived at consensuses on the wording of the vignettes and created a standard triage score from which to compare the study participants. Linear regression and chi-squared test were used to examine the time to triage and accuracy of triage, respectively.

The mean triage time for computerized CTAS (cCTAS) and START were 138 seconds/patient and 33 seconds/patient, respectively. The effect size due to triage method was 108 seconds/patient (95% CI 83-134 seconds/patient). The cumulative triage accuracy for the cCTAS and START tools were 70/90 (77.8%) and 65/90 (72.2%), respectively. The percent difference between cumulative triage was 6% (95% CI −19-8%).

Triage nurses completed START triage 105 seconds/patient faster when compared to cCTAS triage and a similar level of accuracy between the two methods was achieved. However, when the typing time is taken into consideration cCTAS took 45 seconds/patient longer. The use of either CTAS or START in the ED during a MCI may be reasonable but choosing one method over another is not justified from this investigation.