ObjectiveThe mass casualty triage system known as START (Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment) has been widely utilized in the United States since the 1980s. However, no outcomes assessment has been conducted after a disaster to determine whether assigned triage levels match patients' actual clinical status. Researchers hypothesized that START achieves at least 90% sensitivity and specificity for each triage level, and ensures that the most critical patients are transported first to area hospitals. MethodsThe performance of START was evaluated at a train crash disaster in 2003. Patient field triage categories and scene times were obtained from county reports. Patient medical records were then reviewed at all receiving hospitals. Victim arrival times were obtained and correct triage categories determined a priori using a combination of the modified Baxt criteria and hospital admission. Field and outcomes-based triage categories were compared, defining the appropriateness of each triage assignment. ResultsInvestigators reviewed 148 records at 14 receiving hospitals. Field triage designations comprised 22 red (immediate), 68 yellow (delayed), and 58 green (minor) patients. Outcomes-based designations found 2 red, 26 yellow, and 120 green patients. Seventynine patients were over-triaged, three were under-triaged, and 66 patients' outcomes matched their triage level. No triage level met both the 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity requirement set forth in the hypothesis, although red was 100% sensitive (95% CI 15.8-100) and green was 89.3% specific (95% CI 71.8-97.7). The Obuchowski statistic was 0.81, meaning that victims from a higher acuity outcome group had an 81% chance of assignment to a higher acuity triage category. Red patients arrived at hospitals 0.92 hours (95% CI 0.71-1.1) faster than other patients. ConclusionsThis analysis demonstrates poor agreement between triage levels assigned by START at a train crash and a priori outcomes criteria for each level. START ensured acceptable levels of under-triage (100% red sensitivity and 89% green specificity) but incorporated a significant amount of over-triage. START proved useful in prioritizing transport of the most critical patients to area hospitals first.

No abstract

IntroductionCannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is an entity associated with cannabinoid overuse. CHS typically presents with cyclical vomiting, diffuse abdominal pain, and relief with hot showers. Patients often present to the emergency department (ED) repeatedly and undergo extensive evaluations including laboratory examination, advanced imaging, and in some cases unnecessary procedures. They are exposed to an array of pharmacologic interventions including opioids that not only lack evidence, but may also be harmful. This paper presents a novel treatment guideline that highlights the identification and diagnosis of CHS and summarizes treatment strategies aimed at resolution of symptoms, avoidance of unnecessary opioids, and ensuring patient safety.MethodsThe San Diego Emergency Medicine Oversight Commission in collaboration with the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency and San Diego Kaiser Permanente Division of Medical Toxicology created an expert consensus panel to establish a guideline to unite the ED community in the treatment of CHS.ResultsPer the consensus guideline, treatment should focus on symptom relief and education on the need for cannabis cessation. Capsaicin is a readily available topical preparation that is reasonable to use as first-line treatment. Antipsychotics including haloperidol and olanzapine have been reported to provide complete symptom relief in limited case studies. Conventional antiemetics including antihistamines, serotonin antagonists, dopamine antagonists and benzodiazepines may have limited effectiveness. Emergency physicians should avoid opioids if the diagnosis of CHS is certain and educate patients that cannabis cessation is the only intervention that will provide complete symptom relief.ConclusionAn expert consensus treatment guideline is provided to assist with diagnosis and appropriate treatment of CHS. Clinicians and public health officials should identity and treat CHS patients with strategies that decrease exposure to opioids, minimize use of healthcare resources, and maximize patient safety.

Most crashes and fatalities occurred during emergency use and at intersections. The greater burden of injury fell upon persons not in the ambulance. Rear compartment occupants were more likely to be injured than those in the front. Crash and injury reduction programs should address improved intersection control, screening to identify high-risk drivers, appropriate restraint use, and design modifications to the rear compartment of the ambulance.

No abstract