Masskadetriage Underlag för utredning av nationellt införande av masskadetriagesystem för intra-hospitalt bruk
2023
Rapporter
Länkar till rapporten
Rapporter
Sammanfattning
Background:
Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) pose significant challenges to hospital systems, requiring rapid prioritization of patients under resource constraints. While several triage systems exist for pre-hospital use, standardized approaches for intra-hospital mass casualty triage remain underdeveloped and inconsistently applied.
Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) pose significant challenges to hospital systems, requiring rapid prioritization of patients under resource constraints. While several triage systems exist for pre-hospital use, standardized approaches for intra-hospital mass casualty triage remain underdeveloped and inconsistently applied.
Objective:
To examine existing evidence, international guidelines, and practitioner perspectives to inform the potential national implementation of an intra-hospital mass casualty triage system in Sweden.
To examine existing evidence, international guidelines, and practitioner perspectives to inform the potential national implementation of an intra-hospital mass casualty triage system in Sweden.
Results:
The literature review identified limited high-quality evidence comparing intra-hospital triage systems. Existing protocols (e.g., START, RATE, WHO and NHS guidelines) demonstrate varying levels of accuracy, speed, and applicability. Case studies from major incidents (e.g., Paris, London, Beirut) emphasized the importance of structured triage areas outside emergency departments, continuous re-triage, and efficient resource allocation. The interview study revealed consensus on the need for a simple, rapid, and adaptable triage system aligned with everyday practice. Participants highlighted uncertainty regarding who should perform triage, the importance of national standardization, and the necessity of training. A shared system across the care chain was considered beneficial.
The literature review identified limited high-quality evidence comparing intra-hospital triage systems. Existing protocols (e.g., START, RATE, WHO and NHS guidelines) demonstrate varying levels of accuracy, speed, and applicability. Case studies from major incidents (e.g., Paris, London, Beirut) emphasized the importance of structured triage areas outside emergency departments, continuous re-triage, and efficient resource allocation. The interview study revealed consensus on the need for a simple, rapid, and adaptable triage system aligned with everyday practice. Participants highlighted uncertainty regarding who should perform triage, the importance of national standardization, and the necessity of training. A shared system across the care chain was considered beneficial.
Conclusion:
There is strong support for implementing a national intra-hospital mass casualty triage system in Sweden. However, no single system is clearly superior. Successful implementation depends on simplicity, adaptability to local contexts, coordination across the care continuum, and extensive training and stakeholder engagement.
There is strong support for implementing a national intra-hospital mass casualty triage system in Sweden. However, no single system is clearly superior. Successful implementation depends on simplicity, adaptability to local contexts, coordination across the care continuum, and extensive training and stakeholder engagement.
Webbplatskopplingar
