PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - J Vassallo
AU  - S. Chernbumroong
AU  - N. Malik
AU  - Y. Xu
AU  - D. Keene
AU  - G.V. Gkoutos
AU  - MD. Lyttle
AU  - J.E. Smith
AU  - in collaboration with PERUKI (Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland)
TI  - Comparative Analysis of Major Incident Triage Tools in Children – a UK population-based analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2021.06.29.21259604
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.06.29.21259604
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/04/2021.06.29.21259604.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/04/2021.06.29.21259604.full
AB  - Introduction Triage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents. There is currently a paucity of evidence to guide the triage of children. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of nine adult and paediatric triage tools, including the novel ‘Sheffield Paediatric Triage Tool’ (SPTT), assessing their ability in identifying patients needing life-saving interventions (LSI).Methods A ten-year retrospective database review of TARN data for paediatric patients (<16years) was performed. Primary outcome was identification of patients receiving one or more LSIs from a previously defined list. Secondary outcomes included mortality and prediction of ISS>15. Primary analysis was conducted on patients with complete pre-hospital physiological data with planned secondary analyses using first recorded data. Performance characteristics were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, under and over-triage.Results 15133 patients met TARN inclusion criteria. 4962 (32.8%) had complete pre-hospital physiological data and 8255 (54.5%) had complete first recorded physiological data. Male patients predominated (69.5%), sustaining blunt trauma (95.4%) with a median ISS of 9. 875 patients (17.6%) received at least one LSI.The SPTT demonstrated the greatest sensitivity of all triage tools at identifying need for LSI (92.2%) but was associated with the highest rate of over-triage (75.0%). Both the PTT (sensitivity 34.1%) and JumpSTART (sensitivity 45.0%) performed less well at identifying LSI. By contrast, the adult MPTT-24 triage tool had the second highest sensitivity (80.8%) with tolerable rates of over-triage (70.2%).Conclusion The SPTT and MPTT-24 outperform existing paediatric triage tools at identifying those patients requiring LSIs. This may necessitate a change in recommended practice. Further work is needed to determine the optimum method of paediatric major incident triage, but consideration should be given to simplifying major incident triage by the use of one generic tool (the MPTT-24) for adults and children.Section 1: What is already known on this subject?Triage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents. There is currently a paucity of evidence surrounding the use of existing paediatric major incident tools.In the UK, two methods of paediatric major incident triage exist, the Paediatric Triage Tape and the JumpSTART method. In previous studies they have demonstrated less than 50% sensitivity at identifying children in need of life-saving interventions.This study performed a comparative analysis on a UK paediatric trauma registry population and included a newly derived triage tool, the SPTT.Section 2: What this study adds The PTT and JumpSTART perform poorly (<45% sensitivity) in this paediatric trauma registry population.The SPTT and the existing adult triage tool the MPTT-24 outperform all methods. Consideration should be given to simplifying major incident triage by the use of a single generic tool for both adults and children.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre. GVG also acknowledges support from the MRC Heath Data Research UK (HDRUK/CFC/01. Additionally, the lead author received a RCEM Young Investigator grant to support Open Access publication fees for the study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The National Information Governance Board for Health and Social Care regulates the use of patient information in the UK and has previously provided ethical approval for research using anonymised Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) data (approval number: PIAG3-04(e)/2006). Projects using TARN data are governed by a code of practice approved by a Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) appointed by the Health Research Authority (HRA). The CAG has given TARN permission, under Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006, to undertake analyses within strictly defined parameters on anonymised data held on its database.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDe-identified patient data utilised for this study are proprietary to the Trauma Audit and Research Network, University of Manchester and may be requested directly from TARN