The objective of this study was to compare the operational viability and performance of the Sacco Triage Method (STM) to that of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) protocol.

Following a 20-minute review of the mandated START protocol and a 20-minute training session of STM, parallel disaster exercises were conducted. Emergency responded used START in the morning and STM in the afternoon on a simulated building collapse involving 99 victims. Data were collected on the accuracy of patient assessment (START) and scoring (STM), the timeliness in clearing the scene, and me prioritization of patients leaving the scene.

The STM scoring was more accurate than START assessments at 91.7% and 71.0%, respectively. The time to clear the scene was 16% less using STM than START (53 minutes and 63 minutes, respectively). The 13 most seriously injured patients left the scene in the first seven ambulances using STM; while only two of the 13 most seriously injured patients left the scene in the first 13 ambulances under START, and the three most serious patients were transported by bus. Surveyed providers preferred START to STM and believed it to be more accurate, faster, and better able to identify the most serious patients.

Emergency responders did not implement START successfully Despite refresher training and 12 years of using START as their statewide protocol, tagging was inaccurate and patient prioritization was poor. In comparison, STM was implemented after 20 minutes of introductory training, was shown to be operationally viable, and outperformed START in all objectives.