• Matt Pepper, Frank Archer, and John Moloney.
• Monash University Accident Research Centre,Melbourne, Victoria,Australia.
• Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019 Aug 1; 34 (4): 442-448.

IntroductionTerror attacks have increased in frequency, and tactics utilized have evolved. This creates significant challenges for first responders providing life-saving medical care in their immediate aftermath. The use of coordinated and multi-site attack modalities exacerbates these challenges. The use of triage is not well-validated in mass-casualty settings, and in the setting of intentional mass violence, new and innovative approaches are needed.MethodsLiterature sourced from gray and peer-reviewed sources was used to perform a comparative analysis on the application of triage during the 2011 Oslo/Utoya Island (Norway), 2015 Paris (France), and 2015 San Bernardino (California USA) terrorist attacks. A thematic narrative identifies strengths and weaknesses of current triage systems in the setting of complex, coordinated terrorist attacks (CCTAs).DiscussionTriage systems were either not utilized, not available, or adapted and improvised to the tactical setting. The complexity of working with large numbers of patients, sensory deprived environments, high physiological stress, and dynamic threat profiles created significant barriers to the implementation of triage systems designed around flow charts, physiological variables, and the use of tags. Issues were identified around patient movement and "tactical triage."ConclusionCurrent triage tools are inadequate for use in insecure environments, such as the response to CCTAs. Further research and validation are required for novel approaches that simplify tactical triage and support its effective application. Simple solutions exist in tactical triage, patient movement, and tag use, and should be considered as part of an overall triage system.

25 keywords...

hide…