↓ Skip to main content

Introduction of a mass burn casualty triage system in a hospital during a powder explosion disaster: a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Introduction of a mass burn casualty triage system in a hospital during a powder explosion disaster: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13017-018-0199-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chip-Jin Ng, Shih-Hao You, I-Lin Wu, Yi-Ming Weng, Chung-Hsien Chaou, Cheng-Yu Chien, Chen-June Seak

Abstract

The triage system used during an actual mass burn casualty (MBC) incident is a major focus of concern. This study introduces a MBC triage system that was used by a burn center during an actual MBC incident following a powder explosion in New Taipei City, Taiwan. This study retrospectively analyzed data from patients who were sent to the study hospital during a MBC incident. The patient list was retrieved from a national online management system. A MBC triage system was developed at the study hospital using the following modifiers: consciousness, breathing, and burn size. Medical records were retrieved from electronic records for analysis. Patient outcomes consisted of emergency department (ED) disposition and intervention. The patient population was predominantly female (56.3%), with an average age of 24.9 years. Mean burn sizes relative to the TBSA of triage level I, II, and III patients were 57.9%, 40.5%, and 8.7%, respectively. ICU length of stay differed markedly according to triage level (mean days for levels I vs II vs III: 57.9 vs 39.9 vs 2.5 days; p < 0.001). Triage system levels I and II indicate ICU admission with a sensitivity of 93.9% (95%CI 80.4-98.3%) and a specificity of 86.7% (62.1-96.3%).Overall, 3 (6.3%) patients were under-triaged. Two (4.2%) patients were over-triaged. Sixteen (48.5%) and 21 (63.6%) patients of triage levels I and II received endotracheal intubation and central venous catheterization, respectively. Sorting of the study population with simple triage and rapid treatment (START) showed great sensitivity (100.0%) but poor specificity (53.3%). The Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale (TTAS) presented 87.9% sensitivity and 93.9% specificity. The current MBC triage algorithm served as a good indicator of ED disposition but might have raised excessive immediate attention and had the potential to exhaust the available resources. These findings add to our knowledge of the MBC triage system and should help future researchers in adjusting the triage criteria to fit actual disasters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 42 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Engineering 4 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 43 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,648,325
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#411
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,504
of 335,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.