Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-mgxrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T09:24:41.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes Towards and Experience of the Use of Triage Tags in Major Incidents: A Mixed Method Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2016

Monica Rådestad ,
Kristina Lennquist Montán ,
Anders Rüter ,
Maaret Castrén ,
Leif Svensson ,
Dan Gryth  and
Bjöörn Fossum
Monica Rådestad*
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Kristina Lennquist Montán
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg, Institute of Clinical Science, Department of Surgery, Gothenburg, Sweden
Anders Rüter
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden and Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Maaret Castrén
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Leif Svensson
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden Karolinska Institutet, Department for Medicine, Solna, Sweden
Dan Gryth
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Section of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden
Bjöörn Fossum
Affiliation:
Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm Sweden and Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyds sjukhus, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Correspondence: Monica Rådestad, RN, PhD Capio S:t Görans Sjukhus AB Sankt Göransplan 1 SE-112 81 Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: monica.radestad@ki.se, monica.radestad@capiostgoran.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Disaster triage is the allocation of limited medical resources in order to optimize patient outcome. There are several studies showing the poor use of triage tagging, but there are few studies that have investigated the reasons behind this. The aim of this study was to explore ambulance personnel attitude towards, and experiences of, practicing triage tagging during day-to-day management of trauma patients, as well as in major incidents (MIs).

Methods

A mixed method design was used. The first part of the study was in the form of a web-survey of attitudes answered by ambulance personnel. The question explored was: Is it likely that systems that are not used in everyday practice will be used during MIs? Two identical web-based surveys were conducted, before and after implementing a new strategy for triage tagging. This strategy consisted of a time-limited triage routine where ambulance services assigned triage category and applied triage tags in day-to-day trauma incidents in order to improve field triage. The second part comprised three focus group interviews (FGIs) in order to provide a deeper insight into the attitudes towards, and experience of, the use of triage tags. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The overall finding was the need for daily routine when failure in practice. Analysis of the web-survey revealed three changes: ambulance personnel were more prone to use tags in minor accidents, the sort scoring system was considered to be more valuable, but it also was more time consuming after the intervention. In the analysis of FGIs, four categories emerged that describe the construction of the overall category: perceived usability, daily routine, documentation, and need for organizational strategies.

Conclusion

Triage is part of the foundation of ambulance skills, but even so, ambulance personnel seldom use this in routine practice. They fully understand the benefit of accurate triage decisions, and also that the use of a triage algorithm and color coded tags is intended to make it easier and more secure to perform triage. However, despite the knowledge and understanding of these benefits, sparse incidents and infrequent exercises lead to ambulance personnel’s uncertainty concerning the use of triage tagging during a MI and will therefore, most likely, avoid using them.

RådestadM , Lennquist MontánK , RüterA , CastrénM , SvenssonL , GrythD , FossumB . Attitudes Towards and Experience of the Use of Triage Tags in Major Incidents: A Mixed Method Study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(4):376–385.

Keywords

attitudesdisastermajor incidentmass-casualty incidenttriage

Information

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 376 - 385
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Auf der Heide, E. The importance of evidence-based disaster planning. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47(1):34-49.Google Scholar
2. Frykberg, ER. Triage: principles and practice. Scand J Surg. 2005;94(4):272-278.Google Scholar
3. Jenkins, JL, McCarthy, ML, Sauer, LM, et al. Mass-casualty triage: time for an evidence-based approach. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(1):3-8.Google Scholar
4. Kilner, TM, Brace, SJ, Cooke, MW, Stallard, N, Bleetman, A, Perkins, GD. In ‘big bang’ major incidents, do triage tools accurately predict clinical priority? A systematic review of the literature. Injury. 2011;42(5):460-468.Google Scholar
5. Cone, DC, Serra, J, Kurland, L. Comparison of the SALT and SMART triage systems using a virtual reality simulator with paramedic students. Eur J Emerg Med. 2011;18(6):314-321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Challen, K, Walter, D. Major incident triage: comparative validation using data from 7th July bombings. Injury. 2013;44(5):629-633.Google Scholar
7. Nilsson, H, Rüter, A. Attitudes on the use of priority tags. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2007;15:68-70.Google Scholar
8. Sollid, SJ, Rimstad, R, Rehn, M, et al. Oslo government district bombing and Utoya Island shooting July 22, 2011: the immediate prehospital Emergency Medical Service response. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20(1):3.Google Scholar
9. Carresi, AL. The 2004 Madrid train bombings: an analysis of prehospital management. Disasters. 2008;32(1):41-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Aylwin, CJ, König, TC, Brennan, NW, et al. Reduction in critical mortality in urban mass-casualty incidents: analysis of triage, surge, and resource use after the London bombings on July 7, 2005. Lancet. 2006;368(9554):2219-2225.Google Scholar
11. Postma, IL, Winkelhagen, J, Bloemers, FW, Heetveld, MJ, Bijlsma, TS, Goslings, JC. February 2009 airplane crash at Amsterdam Schiphol airport: an overview of injuries and patient distribution. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2011;26(4):299-304.Google Scholar
12. Cryer, HG, Hiatt, JR, Eckstein, M, et al. Improved trauma system multi-casualty incident response: comparison of two train crash disasters. J Trauma. 2010;68(4):783-789.Google Scholar
13. Garner, A. Documentation and tagging of casualties in multiple-casualty incidents. Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2003;15(5-6):475-479.Google Scholar
14. Risavi, BL, Terell, MA, Lee, W, Holsten, DL Jr. Prehospital mass-casualty triage training -written versus moulage scenarios: how much do EMS providers retain? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(3):251-256.Google Scholar
15. Arbon, P, Zeitz, K, Ranse, J, Wren, H, Elliott, R, Driscoll, K. The reality of multiple-casualty triage: putting triage theory into practice at the scene of multiple-casualty vehicular accidents. Emerg Med J. 2008;25(4):230-234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Mackway-Jones, K. Major Incident Medical Management and Support: The Practical Approach at the Scene. 3rd edition. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
17. TSG Associates Web site. http://www.smartmci.com. Accessed August 26, 2015.Google Scholar
18. Rådestad, M. Erfarenheter och attityder till prioriteringsmarkeringar och skadekort i Stockholms Läns Landsting (SLL). SLL Web site. http://www.webbhotell.sll.se/PageFiles/ 12022/Rapport%20Smart%20Tag%20april.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2015.Google Scholar
19. Abelsson, A, Lindwall, L. The prehospital assessment of severe trauma patients‘ performed by the specialist ambulance nurse in Sweden - a phenomenographic study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:67.Google Scholar
20. Wireklint Sundstrom, B, Dahlberg, K. Caring assessment in the Swedish ambulance services relieves suffering and enables safe decisions. Int Emerg Nurs. 2011;19(3):113-119.Google Scholar
21. Ajzen, I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52:27-58.Google Scholar
22. Oxford Dictionaries Web site. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/experience. Accessed June 7, 2013.Google Scholar
23. Rehn, M, Eken, T, Krüger, AJ, Steen, PA, Skaga, NO, Lossius, HM. Precision of field triage in patients brought to a trauma center after introducing trauma team activation guidelines. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009;17:1.Google Scholar
24. Patton, M. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2002.Google Scholar
25. Sandelowski, M. Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(3):246-255.Google Scholar
26. Carey, MA, Smith, MW. Capturing the group effect in focus groups: a special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 1994;4(1):123-127.Google Scholar
27. Langhelle, A, Lossius, HM, Sifvast, T, et al. International EMS systems: the Nordic countries. Resuscitation. 2004;61(1):9-21.Google Scholar
28. Epley, EE, Stewart, RM, Love, P, et al. A regional medical operations center improves disaster response and inter-hospital trauma transfers. Am J Surg. 2006;192(6):853-859.Google Scholar
29. Graneheim, UH, Lundman, B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures, and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today. 2004;24(2):105-112.Google Scholar
30. Perry, RW, Lindell, MK. Preparedness for emergency response: guidelines for the emergency planning process. Disasters. 2003;27(4):336-350.Google Scholar
31. Zoraster, RM, Chidester, C, Koenig, W. Field triage and patient maldistribution in a mass-casualty incident. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(3):224-229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Lennquist, S, Dobson, R. In: Lennquist, S, (ed). Medical Response to Major Incidents and Disasters. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012.Google Scholar
33. Hagiwara, MA, Suserud, BO, Jonsson, A, Henricson, M. Exclusion of context knowledge in the development of prehospital guidelines: results produced by realistic evaluation. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013;21:46.Google Scholar
34. Field, K, Norton, I. Australian triage tags: a prospective, randomized cross-over trial and evaluation of user preference. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(3):321-328.Google Scholar
35. Jokela, J. The Use of Novel Information Technology in Military Medicine and Mass Casualty Situation Training. Finland: University of Tampere; 2010.Google Scholar
36. Killeen, JP, Chan, TC, Buono, C, Griswold, WG, Lenert, LA. A wireless first responder hand-held device for rapid triage, patient assessment, and documentation during mass-casualty incidents. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006: 429-433.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rådestad supplementary material

Rådestad supplementary material 1

Download Rådestad supplementary material(File)
File 7.5 MB