Triaging plays an important role in providing suitable care to a large number of casualties in a disaster setting. A Pediatric Physiological and Anatomical Triage Score (PPATS) was developed as a new secondary triage method. This study aimed to validate the accuracy of the PPATS in identifying injured pediatric patients who are admitted at a high frequency and require immediate treatment in a disaster setting. The PPATS method was also compared with the current triage methods, such as the Triage Revised Trauma Score (TRTS).

A retrospective review of pediatric patients aged ≤15 years, registered in the Japan Trauma Data Bank (JTDB) from 2012 through 2016, was conducted and PPATS was performed. The PPATS method graded patients from zero to 22, and was calculated based on vital signs, anatomical abnormalities, and the need for life-saving interventions. It categorized patients based on their priority, and the intensive care unit (ICU)-indicated patients were assigned a PPATS ≥six. The accuracy of PPATS and TRTS in predicting the outcome of ICU-indicated patients was compared.

Of 2,005 pediatric patients, 1,002 (50%) were admitted to the ICU. The median age of the patients was nine years (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-13 years). The sensitivity and specificity of PPATS were 78.6% and 43.7%, respectively. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was larger for PPATS (0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.63) than for TRTS (0.57; 95% CI, 0.56-0.59; P <.01). Regression analysis showed a significant correlation between PPATS and the Injury Severity Score (ISS; r2 = 0.353; P <.001), predicted survival rate (r2 = 0.396; P <.001), and duration of hospital stay (r2 = 0.252; P <.001).

The accuracy of PPATS for injured pediatric patients was superior to that of current secondary triage methods. The PPATS method is useful not only for identifying high-priority patients, but also for determining the priority ranking for medical treatments and evacuation.

Triage has an important role in providing suitable care to the largest number of casualties in a disaster setting, but there are no secondary triage methods suitable for children. This study developed a new secondary triage method named the Pediatric Physiological and Anatomical Triage Score (PPATS) and compared its accuracy with current triage methods.

A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients under 16 years old transferred to an emergency center from 2014 to 2016 was performed. The PPATS categorized the patients, defined the intensive care unit (ICU)-indicated patients if the category was highest, and compared the accuracy of prediction of ICU-indicated patients among PPATS, Physiological and Anatomical Triage (PAT), and Triage Revised Trauma Score (TRTS).

Among 137 patients, 24 (17.5%) were admitted to ICU. The median PPATS score of these patients was significantly higher than that of patients not admitted to ICU (11 [IQR: 9-13] versus three [IQR: 2-4]; P<.001). The optimal cut-off value of the PPTAS was six, yielding a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%, 86.7%, 60.5%, and 99.0%. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was larger for PPTAS than for PAT or TRTS (0.95 [95% CI, 0.87-1.00] versus 0.65 [95% CI, 0.58-0.72]; P<.001 and 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.89]; P=.003, respectively). Regression analysis showed a significant association between the PPATS and the predicted mortality rate (r2=0.139; P<.001), ventilation time (r2=0.320; P<.001), ICU stay (r2=0.362; P<.001), and hospital stay (r2=0.308; P<.001).

The accuracy of PPATS was superior to other methods for secondary triage of children.

ToidaC, MugurumaT, AbeT, ShinoharaM, GakumazawaM, YogoN, ShirasawaA, MorimuraN. Introduction of Pediatric Physiological and Anatomical Triage Score in Mass-Casualty Incident. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(2):147–152.

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.