Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 6, 2025

Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Comparison of prehospital professional accuracy, speed, and interrater reliability of six pediatric triage algorithms
Tabitha Cheng1, Katherine Staats1, Amy H Kaji2
1Department of Emergency Medicine UCSD San Diego USA.
Insights
Pediatric mass casualty incident (MCI) triage algorithms show a trade-off between accuracy and speed. The Sacco Triage Method (STM) was most accurate and reliable, but slowest, while others were faster but less accurate.
Area of Science:
- Emergency Medicine
- Disaster Triage
- Pediatric Triage
Background:
- Effective triage is critical during pediatric mass casualty incidents (MCIs).
- Prehospital professionals' performance with various triage tools is not fully understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the accuracy, speed, and interrater reliability of five pediatric disaster triage algorithms.
- To compare these algorithms against a no-tool approach in a simulated pediatric MCI.
Main Methods:
- 107 prehospital professionals participated in a tabletop exercise with 25 pediatric victims.
- Triage algorithms evaluated included CareFlight (CF), Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) and JumpSTART (J-START), Pediatric Triage Tape (PTT), Sort, Assess, Life-saving interventions, Treatment/Transport (SALT), and Sacco Triage Method (STM).
- Performance metrics included accuracy, speed, and interrater reliability against a criterion standard.
Main Results:
- Sacco Triage Method (STM) showed the highest accuracy (89.3%) and interrater reliability.
- Pediatric Triage Tape (PTT) had the lowest accuracy (67.8%) and highest overtriage.
- CareFlight (CF), SALT, and No Algorithm (NA) were the fastest, completing triage in 5 minutes or less.
Conclusions:
- No single pediatric triage algorithm excelled in all evaluated measures (accuracy, speed, reliability).
- A common challenge in MCI triage is the inverse relationship between accuracy/reliability and speed.
- Further research in larger drills or real-world events is necessary to validate these findings.
Objectives:
We evaluated prehospital professionals' accuracy, speed, interrater reliability, and impression in a pediatric disaster scenario both without a tool ("No Algorithm"-NA) and with 1 of 5 algorithms: CareFlight (CF), Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) and JumpSTART (J-START), Pediatric Triage Tape (PTT), Sort, Assess, Life-saving interventions, Treatment/Transport (SALT), and Sacco Triage Method (STM).
Methods:
Prehospital professionals received disaster lectures, focusing on 1 triage algorithm. Then they completed a timed tabletop disaster exercise with 25 pediatric victims to measure speed. A predetermined criterion standard was used to assess accuracy of answers. Answers were compared to one another to determine the interrater reliability.
Results:
One hundred and seven prehospital professionals participated, with 15-28 prehospital professionals in each group. The accuracy was highest for STM (89.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 85.7% to 92.2%) and lowest for PTT (67.8%; 95% CI 63.4% to 72.1%). Accuracy of NA and SALT tended toward undertriage (15.8% and 16.3%, respectively). The remaining algorithms tended to overtriage, with PTT having the highest overtriage percentage (25.8%). The 3 fastest algorithms were: CF, SALT, and NA, all taking 5 minutes or less. STM was the slowest. STM demonstrated the highest interrater reliability, whereas CF and SALT demonstrated the lowest interrater reliability.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates the most common challenges inherent to mass casualty incident (MCI) triage systems: as accuracy and prehospital professional interrater reliability improve, speed slows. No triage algorithm in our study excelled in all these measures. Additional investigation of these algorithms in larger MCI drills requiring collection of vital signs in real time or during a real MCI event is needed.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation I: Adult

