Mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) and disasters are characterized by a high heterogeneity of effects and may pose important logistic challenges that could hamper the emergency rescue operations.

The main objective of this study was to establish the most frequent logistic challenges (red flags) observed in a series of Italian disasters with a problem-based approach and to verify if the 80-20 rule of the Pareto principle is respected.

A series of 138 major events from 1944 through 2020 with a Disaster Severity Score (DSS) ≥ four and five or more victims were analyzed for the presence of twelve pre-determined red flags.

A Pareto graph was built considering the most frequently observed red flags, and eventual correlations between the number of red flags and the components of the DSS were investigated.

Eight out of twelve red flags covered 80% of the events, therefore not respecting the 80-20 rule; the number of red flags showed a low positive correlation with most of the components of the DSS score. The Pareto analysis showed that potential hazards, casualty nest area > 2.5km2, number of victims over 50, evacuation noria over 20km, number of nests > five, need for extrication, complex access to victims, and complex nest development were the most frequently observed red flags.

Logistic problems observed in MCIs and disaster scenarios do not follow the 80-20 Pareto rule; this demands for careful and early evaluation of different logistic red flags to appropriately tailor the rescue response.

START (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment) triage is a tool that is available even to nonmedical rescue personnel in case of a disaster or mass casualty incident (MCI). In Italy, no data are available on whether application of the START protocol could improve patient outcomes during a disaster or MCI. We aimed to address whether “last-minute” START training of nonmedical personnel during a disaster or MCI would result in more effective triage of patients.

In this case-control study, 400 nonmedical ambulance crew members were randomly assigned to a non-START or a START group (200 per group). The START group received last-minute START training. Each group examined 6000 patients, obtained from the Emergo Train System (ETS Italy, Bologna, Italy) victims database, and assigned patients a triage code (black-red-yellow-green) along with a reason for the assignment. Each rescuer triaged 30 patients within a 30-minute time frame. Results were analyzed according to Fisher’s exact test for a P value<0.01. Under- and over-triage ratios were analyzed as well.

The START group completed the evaluations in 15 minutes, whereas the non-START group took 30 minutes. The START group correctly triaged 94.2% of their patients, as opposed to 59.83% of the non-START group (P<0.01). Under- and over-triage were, respectively, 2.73% and 3.08% for the START group versus 13.67% and 26.5% for the non-START group. The non-START group had 458 “preventable deaths” on 6000 cases because of incorrect triage, whereas the START group had 91.

Even a “last-minute” training on the START triage protocol allows nonmedical personnel to better identify and triage the victims of a disaster or MCI, resulting in more effective and efficient medical intervention. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:305–309)