Simple triage and rapid treatment protocol for emergency department mass casualty incident victim triage
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 7, 2025

Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Yun-Kuan Lin1, Kun-Chuan Chen1, Jen-Hung Wang2
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, postal address: No. 707, Sec. 3, Zhongyang Rd., Hualien City, Hualien County 970, Taiwan.
Objective:
Triage plays an essential role in emergency medical care. It is crucial to adopt appropriate triage in a mass casualty incident (MCI) when resources are limited. The simple triage and rapid treatment (START) protocol is commonly used worldwide; however, the effectiveness of the START protocol for emergency department (ED) triage is unclear. This study aimed to examine the accuracy of START for the ED triage of victims following a MCI.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the records of victims who presented to our ED during a MCI response after a train crash. The ED nurses applied the START protocol upon patient arrival, and we used a consensus-based standard to determine the outcome-based categories of these same patients. We compared the START protocol and outcome-based categories. In addition, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of START in terms of predicting surgery and ED disposition were determined.
Results:
This study enrolled 47 patients (predominantly women, 68.1%; median age: 39.0years). Most victims were triaged into the START minor category (61.7%) and discharged from the ED (68.1%). Twenty-nine patients had matched START and outcome-based categories, whereas 2 patients were over-triaged and 16 patients were under-triaged. Additionally, the START system had acceptable AUC and sensitivities for predicting surgery and ED disposition (AUC/sensitivity/specificity for surgery: 0.850/100%/69.1%; AUC/sensitivity/specificity for admission: 0.917/93.3%/87.5%; AUC/sensitivity/specificity for intensive care unit (ICU)/ED death: 0.994/100%/97.8%).
Conclusions:
This study demonstrated poor agreement between START categories, as determined in the ED, and the consensus-based standard categories. However, the START protocol was acceptable in terms of identifying emergent patients (100% sensitivity for the immediate and deceased categories) and predicting ED disposition (surgery, admission, and ICU/ED mortality). Although START is not perfect, our findings suggest that it could be used for the ED triage of trauma-related MCI victims.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Introduction Cardiac Emergencies
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Acute Coronary Syndrome V: Nursing Management

