Many triage algorithms exist for use in mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) involving pediatric patients. Most of these algorithms have not been validated for reliability across users.

Investigators sought to compare inter-rater reliability (IRR) and agreement among five MCI algorithms used in the pediatric population.

A dataset of 253 pediatric (<14 years of age) trauma activations from a Level I trauma center was used to obtain prehospital information and demographics. Three raters were trained on five MCI triage algorithms: Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) and JumpSTART, as appropriate for age (combined as J-START); Sort Assess Life-Saving Intervention Treatment (SALT); Pediatric Triage Tape (PTT); CareFlight (CF); and Sacco Triage Method (STM). Patient outcomes were collected but not available to raters. Each rater triaged the full set of patients into Green, Yellow, Red, or Black categories with each of the five MCI algorithms. The IRR was reported as weighted kappa scores with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Descriptive statistics were used to describe inter-rater and inter-MCI algorithm agreement.

Of the 253 patients, 247 had complete triage assignments among the five algorithms and were included in the study. The IRR was excellent for a majority of the algorithms; however, J-START and CF had the highest reliability with a kappa 0.94 or higher (0.9-1.0, 95% CI for overall weighted kappa). The greatest variability was in SALT among Green and Yellow patients. Overall, J-START and CF had the highest inter-rater and inter-MCI algorithm agreements.

The IRR was excellent for a majority of the algorithms. The SALT algorithm, which contains subjective components, had the lowest IRR when applied to this dataset of pediatric trauma patients. Both J-START and CF demonstrated the best overall reliability and agreement.

In a mass-casualty incident (MCI) involving children, there is a need to apply accurate triage tools in order to help those who require important care, and at the same time, to avoid unnecessary use of resources. Thus, it is discussed which would be the best triage device to use in these situations. One of the most used is a modification of Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment, JumpSTART, whose performative quality this review focuses on.

This review sought to compare the performance parameters of JumpSTART with other triage algorithms used in pediatric disaster victims.

This systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews with the number CRD42021258415. The last update of the search in the databases was on August 12, 2021 and resulted in six documents to be analyzed. The inclusion criteria included the peer-reviewed academic papers in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian languages, and the databases used were PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE/Bireme (Virtual Library of Health), Web of Science, and CINAHL, which executes the query on the topic, keywords, or abstracts. Also to be included, documents that were available with full-text access through CAPES, Google, or Google Scholar. Books, non-academic research, and content in languages other than the presented ones were represented as exclusion criteria. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists were used to evaluate the methodological quality of the retrieved studies. The results were presented through narrative synthesis. This review was not funded.

Of the collected publications, five articles were used to carry out this review, with the addition of an extra article captured by citation tracking. The findings from the obtained results were that JumpSTART was the preferred tool and presented the fastest speed of use. Only one of the five studies that dealt with accuracy showed JumpSTART as the most accurate algorithm, while three of the other four showed its inferiority in most aspects. In one study, no significant difference was observed amongst the chosen protocols.

There is insufficient evidence to validate JumpSTART as a universal triage tool, given the disparities in the results obtained from the comparisons. No tool performed satisfactorily well, therefore there is an urgent need to create a reliable algorithm.

British police officers authorized to carry firearms may need to make judgments about the severity of injury of individuals or the relative priority of clinical need of a group of injured patients in tactical and non-tactical situations. Most of these officers receive little or no medical training beyond basic first aid to enable them to make these clinical decisions. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of triage decision-making of firearms-trained police officers with and without printed decision-support materials.

Eighty-two police firearms officers attending a tactical medicine course (FASTAid) were recruited to the study. Data were collected using a paper-based triage exercise that contained brief, clinical details of 20 adults and 10 children. Subjects were asked to assign a clinical priority of immediate or priority 1 (P1); urgent or priority 2 (P2); delayed or priority 3 (P3); or dead, to each casualty. Then, they were provided with decision-making materials, but were not given any instruction as to how these materials should be used. Subjects then completed a second triage exercise, identical to the first, except this time using the decision-support materials.

Data were analyzed using mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance. This allowed comparisons to be made between the scores for Exercise 1 (no decision-support material) and Exercise 2 (with decision-support material). It also allowed any differences between those students with previous triage training and those without previous training to be explored.

The use of triage decision-making materials resulted in a significant increase in correct responses (p <0.001). Improvement in accuracy appears to result mainly from a reduction in the extent of under-triage. There were significant differences (p <0.05) between those who had received previous triage training and those who had not, with those having received triage training doing slightly better.

It appears that significant improvements in the accuracy of triage decision-making by police firearms officers can be achieved with the use of appropriate triage decision-support materials. Training may offer additional improvements in accuracy, but this improvement is likely to be small when decision-support materials are provided. With basic clinical skills and appropriate decision-support materials, it is likely that the police officer can make accurate triage decisions in a multiple-casualty scenario or make judgments of the severity of injury of a given individual in both tactical and non-tactical situations.