Skip to main content Accessibility help

Paramedic Application of a Triage Sieve: A Paper-Based Exercise

  • Glen Cuttance (a1) (a2), Kathryn Dansie (a2) and Tim Rayner (a2)



Triage is the systematic prioritization of casualties when there is an imbalance between the needs of these casualties and resource availability. The triage sieve is a recognized process for prioritizing casualties for treatment during mass-casualty incidents (MCIs). While the application of a triage sieve generally is well-accepted, the measurement of its accuracy has been somewhat limited. Obtaining reliable measures for triage sieve accuracy rates is viewed as a necessity for future development in this area.


The goal of this study was to investigate how theoretical knowledge acquisition and the practical application of an aide-memoir impacted triage sieve accuracy rates.


Two hundred and ninety-two paramedics were allocated randomly to one of four separate sub-groups, a non-intervention control group, and three intervention groups, which involved them receiving either an educational review session and/or an aide-memoir. Participants were asked to triage sieve 20 casualties using a previously trialed questionnaire.


The study showed the non-intervention control group had a correct accuracy rate of 47%, a similar proportion of casualties found to be under-triaged (37%), but a significantly lower number of casualties were over-triaged (16%). The provision of either an educational review or aide-memoir significantly increased the correct triage sieve accuracy rate to 77% and 90%, respectively. Participants who received both the educational review and aide-memoir had an overall accuracy rate of 89%. Over-triaged rates were found not to differ significantly across any of the study groups.


This study supports the use of an aide-memoir for maximizing MCI triage accuracy rates. A “just-in-time” educational refresher provided comparable benefits, however its practical application to the MCI setting has significant operational limitations. In addition, this study provides some guidance on triage sieve accuracy rate measures that can be applied to define acceptable performance of a triage sieve during a MCI.

Cuttance G , Dansie K , Rayner T . Paramedic Application of a Triage Sieve: A Paper-Based Exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(1):313.


Corresponding author

Correspondence: Glen Cuttance, MEmergMgt South Australia Ambulance Service Metro Ops GPO Box 3 Adelaide, South Australia 5001 Australia E-mail:


Hide All
1. Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department. Australian Emergency Management Glossary. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 1998.
2. Lee, CW, McLeod, SL, Peddle, MB. First responder accuracy using SALT after brief initial training. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(5):1-5.
3. Nocera, A, Garner, A. Australian disaster triage: a color maze in the Tower of Babel. Aust N Z J Surg. 1999;69(8):598-602.
4. Castle, N. Triage and transport decisions after mass casualty incidents. Emerg Nurse. 2006;14(1):22-25.
5. Kilner, T. Triage decisions of prehospital emergency health care providers, using a multiple casualty scenario paper exercise. Emerg Med J. 2002;19(4):348-353.
6. Aitken, P, FitzGerald, G. Disaster triage: evidence, consistency, and standard practice. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(3):222-224.
7. Lidal, IB, Holte, HH, Vist, GE. Triage systems for prehospital Emergency Medical Services - a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013;21:28-33.
8. Arshad, FH, Williams, A, Asaeda, G, et al. A modified simple triage and rapid treatment algorithm from the New York City (USA) Fire Department. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(2):199-204.
9. Deluhery, MR, Lerner, EB, Pirrallo, RG, et al. Paramedic accuracy using SALT triage after a brief initial training. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15(4):526-532.
10. Lerner, EB, Schwartz, RB, Coule, PL, et al. Mass-casualty triage: an evaluation of the data and development of a proposed national guideline. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S25-S34.
11. Cross, KP, Cicero, MX. Head-to-head comparison of disaster triage methods in pediatric, adult, and geriatric patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(6):668-676.
12. Challen, K, Walter, D. Major incident triage: comparative validation using data from 7th July bombings. Injury. 2013;44(5):629-633.
13. Sasser, SM, Hunt, RC, Faul, M, et al. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2012;61(RR-1):1-20.
14. Wesson, DE, Scorpio, R. Field triage--help or hindrance? Can J Surg. 1992;35(1):19-21.
15. Committee on Trauma of the American College of Surgeons. Field categorization of trauma patients (field triage). Appendix F to the Hospital Resources Document. American College of Surgeons (ACS) Bulletin, 1986.
16. Carron, PN, Taffe, P, Ribordy, V, et al. Accuracy of prehospital triage of trauma patients by emergency physicians: a retrospective study in western Switzerland. Eur J Emerg Med. 2011;18(2):86-93.
17. Horne, S, Vassallo, J, Read, J, et al. UK triage--an improved tool for an evolving threat. Injury. 2013;44(1):23-28.
18. Mohan, D, Rosengart, MR, Farris, C, et al. Assessing the feasibility of the American College of Surgeons’ benchmarks for the triage of trauma patients. Arch Surg. 2011;146(7):786-792.
19. Hammond, J. Mass-casualty incidents: planning implications for trauma care. Scand J Surg. 2005;94(4):267-271.
20. Lerner, EB, Cone, DC, Weinstein, ES, et al. Mass-casualty triage: an evaluation of the science and refinement of a national guideline. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2011;5(2):129-137.
21. Hogan, DE, Brown, T. Utility of vital signs in mass-casualty disaster triage. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(7):732-735.
22. Lennquist, S. Management of major accidents and disasters: an important responsibility for the trauma surgeons. J Trauma. 2007;62(6):1321-1329.
23. Culley, JM, Effken, JA. Development and validation of a mass-casualty conceptual model. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010;42(1):66-75.
24. Cross, KP, Petry, MJ, Cicero, MX. A better START for low-acuity victims: data-driven refinement of mass-casualty triage. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(2):272-278.
25. Debacker, M, Hubloue, I, Dhondt, E, et al. Utstein-style template for uniform data reporting of acute medical response in disasters. PLoS Current. 2012.
26. Benson, M, Koenig, KL, Schultz, CH. Disaster triage: START, then SAVE--a new method of dynamic triage for victims of a catastrophic earthquake. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1996;11(2):117-124.
27. Field, K, Norton, I. Australian triage tags: a prospective, randomized cross-over trial and evaluation of user preference. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(3):321-328.
28. Jenkins, JL, McCarthy, ML, Sauer, LM, et al. Mass-casualty triage: time for an evidence-based approach. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(1):3-8.
29. Armstrong, JH, Frykberg, ER, Burris, DG. Toward a national standard in primary mass-casualty triage. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S8-10.
30. Mackway-Jones, K. Major Incident Medical Management and Support: The Practical Approach at the Scene. 3rd edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
31. Dethick, L. Coordinating major incident trauma care: international responses. Emerg Nurse. 1999;7(4):8-12.
32. Hayward, M. Prehospital response to major incidents. Nurs Stand. 2003;17(30):37-40.
33. Sapp, RF, Brice, JH, Myers, JB, et al. Triage performance of first-year medical students using a multiple-casualty scenario, paper exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(3):239-245.
34. Kilner, T, Hall, FJ. Triage decisions of United Kingdom police firearms officers using a multiple-casualty scenario paper exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005;20(1):40-46.
35. Navin, M, Waddell, B. Triage is broken. Emerg Med Serv. 2005;34(8):138-142.
36. Paramedics Australasis. Paramedicine Role Descriptions. 2012. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
37. Ersoy, N, Akpinar, A. Triage decisions of emergency physicians in Kocaeli and the principle of justice. Turkish J Trauma Emergency Surgery. 2010;16(3):203-209.
38. Fattah, S, Rehn, M, Reierth, E, et al. Systematic literature review of templates for reporting prehospital major incident medical management. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8).



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed