MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300785004 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x16000091

First Responder Accuracy Using SALT during Mass-casualty Incident Simulation

2016· article· en· W2300785004 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher W.C. Lee, Shelley McLeod, Kristine Van Aarsen, Michelle Klingel, Jeffrey Michael Franc, Michael Peddle

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageMass-casualty incidentMedical emergencyMedicineEmergency medical servicesCoachingPsychological interventionEmergency medicineMass CasualtyPoison controlInjury preventionPsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: During mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), patient volume often overwhelms available Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel. First responders are expected to triage, treat, and transport patients in a timely fashion. If other responders could triage accurately, prehospital EMS resources could be focused more directly on patients that require immediate medical attention and transport. HYPOTHESIS: Triage accuracy, error patterns, and time to triage completion are similar between second-year primary care paramedic (PCP) and fire science (FS) students participating in a simulated MCI using the Sort, Assess, Life-saving interventions, Treatment/Transport (SALT) triage algorithm. METHODS: All students in the second-year PCP program and FS program at two separate community colleges were invited to participate in this study. Immediately following a 30-minute didactic session on SALT, participants were given a standardized briefing and asked to triage an eight-victim, mock MCI using SALT. The scenario consisted of a four-car motor vehicle collision with each victim portrayed by volunteer actors given appropriate moulage and symptom coaching for their pattern of injury. The total number and acuity of victims were unknown to participants prior to arrival to the mock scenario. RESULTS: Thirty-eight PCP and 29 FS students completed the simulation. Overall triage accuracy was 79.9% for PCP and 72.0% for FS (∆ 7.9%; 95% CI, 1.2-14.7) students. No significant difference was found between the groups regarding types of triage errors. Over-triage, under-triage, and critical errors occurred in 10.2%, 7.6%, and 2.3% of PCP triage assignments, respectively. Fire science students had a similar pattern with 15.2% over-triaged, 8.7% under-triaged, and 4.3% critical errors. The median [IQR] time to triage completion for PCPs and FSs were 142.1 [52.6] seconds and 159.0 [40.5] seconds, respectively (P=.19; Mann-Whitney Test). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care paramedics performed MCI triage more accurately than FS students after brief SALT training, but no difference was found regarding types of error or time to triage completion. The clinical importance of this difference in triage accuracy likely is minimal, suggesting that fire services personnel could be considered for MCI triage depending on the availability of prehospital medical resources and appropriate training.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207