SPECIAL FOCUS Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage Endorsed by American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Emergency Physicians; American College of Surgeons – Committee on Trauma; American Trauma Society; Children’s National Medical Center, Child Health Advocacy Institute, Emergency Medical Services for Children National Resource Center; International Association of Emergency Medical Services Chiefs; National Association of County and City Health Officials; National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians; National Association of EMS Physicians; National Association of State EMS Officials; National Disaster Life Support Education Consortium™; National EMS Management Association; Society for the Advancement of Violence and Injury Research Concurrence by Health Resources and Services Administration/Maternal and Child Health Bureau Emergency Medical Services for Children Program ABSTRACT There is a need for model uniform core criteria for mass casualty triage because disasters frequently cross juris- dictional lines and involve responders from multiple agencies who may be using different triage tools. These criteria (Tables 1-4) reflect the available science, but it is acknowledged that there are significant research gaps. When no sci- ence was available, decisions were formed by expert consensus derived from the available triage systems. The intent is to ensure that providers at a mass-casualty incident use triage methodologies that incorporate these core principles in an effort to promote interoperability and standardization. At a minimum, each triage system must incorporate the criteriathatarelistedbelow.Masscasualtytriagesystemsinusecanbemodifiedusingthesecriteriatoensureinteroperability. The criteria include general considerations, global sorting, lifesaving interventions, and assignment of triage cat- egories. The criteria apply only to providers who are organizing multiple victims in a discrete geographic location or locations, regardless of the size of the incident. They are classified by whether they were derived through avail- able direct scientific evidence, indirect scientific evidence, expert consensus, and/or are used in multiple existing triage systems. These criteria address only primary triage and do not consider secondary triage. For the pur- poses of this document the term triage refers to mass-casualty triage and provider refers to any person who assigns primary triage categories to victims of a mass-casualty incident. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:125-128) Key Words: mass casualty triage, disaster TABLE 1 General Considerations Basis (Science, Indirect Used by Relevant Criteria Science, or Consensus) Other Systems Literature 1.1 Triage systems and all their components must apply Indirect Science Other Systems Wang and Hung 2005; to all ages and populations of patients. Wallis and Carley 20061,2 1.2 Triage systems must be applicable across the broad Consensus Hodgetts 2001; Baker 2004; range of mass casualty incidents where there is a Cone and Koenig 20053-5 single location with multiple patients. 1.3 Triage systems must be simple, easy to remember, Indirect Science Other Systems Kilner and Hall 2005; and amenable to quick memory aids. Wang and Hung 20052,6 1.4 Triage systems must be rapid to apply and practical Consensus Other Systems Lee, Chiu et al. 20027 for use in an austere environment. 1.5 Triage systems are resource dependent and the system Consensus Other Systems Benson, Koenig et al. 19968 must allow for dynamic triage decisions based on changes in available resources and patient conditions. 1.6 The triage system must require that the assigned Consensus triage category for each patient be visibly identifiable (eg, triage tags, tarps, markers). 1.7 Triage is dynamic and reflects patient condition and Consensus Okumura, Suzuki et al. 1998; available resources at the time of assessment. Hodgetts 2001; Assessments must be repeated whenever possible and Kragh, Walters et al. 2008; categories adjusted to reflect changes. Kahn, Schultz et al. 2009; Kragh, Littrel et al. 2009; Kragh, Walters et al. 20095,9-13 Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 125 ©2011 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage TABLE 2 Global Sorting Basis (Science, Indirect Science, Used by Relevant Criteria or Consensus) Other Systems Literature 2.1 Simple commands must be used to initially Indirect Science Other Systems Meredith, Rutledge et al. 1995; prioritize victims for individual assessment. Garner, Lee et al. 2001; Holcomb, Niles et al. 200514-16 2.2 First priority for individual assessment is to Indirect Science Meredith, Rutledge et al. 1995; identify those who are likely to need a Garner, Lee et al. 2001; Lifesaving Intervention. They can be identified Holcomb, Niles et al. 2005; as those: (1) unable to follow commands and Kragh, Walters et al. 2008; not making purposeful movements, or (2) Kragh, Littrel et al. 2009; those with an obvious life threat (eg, life Kragh, Walters et al. 200910-12,14-16 threatening external hemorrhage). 2.3 Second priority for individual assessment will Indirect Science Meredith, Rutledge et al. 1995; be those who are unable to follow the Garner, Lee et al. 2001; command to ambulate to an assigned place Holcomb, Niles et al. 200514-16 but are able to follow other commands (eg, wave) or make purposeful movement. 2.4 Last priority for individual assessment will be Indirect Science Other Systems Meredith, Rutledge et al. 1995; those who follow commands by ambulating to Garner, Lee et al. 2001; an assigned place (or making purposeful Holcomb, Niles et al. 200514-16 movements) and have no obvious life threatening conditions (eg, life threatening external hemorrhage). 2.5 All patients must be individually assessed Indirect Science Garner, Lee et al. 2001; regardless of their initial prioritization during de Ceballos, Turegano-Fuentes global sorting. This includes the assessment et al. 200514,17 of walking patients as soon as resources are available. TABLE 3 Lifesaving Interventions Basis (Science, Indirect Science, Used by Relevant Criteria or Consensus) Other Systems Literature 3.1 Lifesaving interventions are considered for each Indirect Science Other Systems Bellamy 1984; Baker 2004; patient and provided as necessary, prior to Kragh, Walters et al. 2008; assigning a triage category. Patients must be Kragh, Littrel et al. 2009; assigned a triage category according to their Kragh, Walters et al. 20093,10-12,18 condition following any lifesaving interventions. 3.2 Lifesaving interventions are performed only if: Consensus (1) the equipment is readily available, (2) the intervention is within the provider’s scope of practice, (3) they can be quickly performed (ie, less than a minute), and (4) they do not require the provider to stay with the patient. 3.3 Lifesaving interventions include the following: Science Hemorrhage: Bellamy 1984; control of life threatening external hemorrhage, Bellamy, Pedersen et al. 1984; opening the airway using basic maneuvers (for an Brodie, Hodgetts et al. 2007; apneic child consider 2 rescue breaths), chest Lee, Porter et al. 2007; decompression, and auto injector antidotes. Doyle and Taillac 2008; Kragh, Walters et al. 2008; Kragh, Littrel et al. 2009; Kragh, Walters et al. 200910-12,18-22 Chest Decompression: Barton, Epperson et al. 1995; Eckstein and Suyehara 1998; Davis, Pettit et al. 200523-25 Airway: Bellamy 198418 Auto injector antidotes: Okumura, Suzuki et al. 1998; Baker 20043,26 126 Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness VOL. 5/NO. 2 ©2011 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage TABLE 4 Individual Assessment of Triage Category Basis (Science, Indirect Science, Used by Relevant Criteria or Consensus) Other Systems Literature 4.1 Each victim must be assigned to one of five Consensus Other Systems triage categories (Immediate, Delayed, Minimal, Expectant, Dead). Each category must be represented with an associated color: Immediate/red, Delayed/yellow, Minimal/green, Expectant/gray, Dead/black. 4.2 Assessment must not require counting or timing Indirect Science Burkle, Newland et al. 1994; vital signs and instead use yes or no criteria. Bazarian, Eirich et al. 2003; Diagnostic equipment must not be used for initial Waisman, Aharonson-Daniel et al. 2003; assessment. Holcomb, Salinas et al. 2005; McManus, Yershov et al. 2005; Sztajnkrycer, Baez et al. 200627-32 4.3 Capillary refill must not be used as a sole Science Other Systems Schriger and Baraff 1991; indicator of peripheral perfusion. McManus, Yershov et al. 200529,33 4.4 Patients who are not breathing after one Consensus Other Systems Hogan, Waeckerle et al. 199934 attempt to open their airway (in children two rescue breaths may also be given) must be classified as dead and visually identified as such. 4.5 Patients are categorized as immediate if: they are Indirect Science Other Systems Koehler, Baer et al. 1986; unable to follow commands or make purposeful Koehler, Malafa et al. 1987; movements; OR do not have a peripheral pulse; Meredith, Rutledge et al. 1995; OR are in obvious respiratory distress; OR have a Quintana, Parker et al. 1997; life threatening external hemorrhage; provided Garner, Lee et al. 2001; their injuries are likely to be survivable given Holcomb, Niles et al. 2005; available resources. Holcomb, Salinas et al. 2005; Holmes, Palchak et al. 2005; McManus, Yershov et al. 2005; Kragh, Walters et al.