Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2015
Improved and sustained triage skills in firemen after a short training intervention.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triage of road injury casualties - the role of bystanders: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Decision-making during training of a Swedish navy command and control team: a quantitative study of workload effects.Cognitive processing · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA previous study has shown no measurable improvement in triage accuracy among physicians attending the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course and suggests a curriculum revision regarding triage. Other studies have indicated that cooperative learning helps students acquire knowledge.
objectiveThe present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of trauma cards in triage training for firemen.
methodsEighty-six firemen were randomly assigned into two groups: the trauma card group and the direct instruction group. Both groups received the same 30-min PowerPoint lecture on how to perform triage according to the Sort Assess Lifesaving interventions Treatment and transport (SALT) Mass Casualty Triage Algorithm. In the trauma card group, the participants were divided into groups of 3-5 and instructed to triage 10 trauma victims according to the descriptions on the trauma cards. In the direct instruction group, written forms about the same 10 victims were used and discussed as a continuation of the PowerPoint lecture. Total training time was 60 min for both groups. A test was distributed before and after the educational intervention to measure the individual triage skills. The same test was applied again 6 months later.
resultsThere was a significant improvement in triage skills directly after the intervention and this was sustained 6 months later. No significant difference in triage skills was seen between the trauma card group and the direct instruction group. Previous experience of multi-casualty incidents, years in service, level of education or age did not have any measurable effects on triage accuracy.
conclusionsOne hour of triage training with the SALT Mass Casualty Triage Algorithm was enough to significantly improve triage accuracy in both groups of firemen with sustained skills 6 months later. Further studies on the first assessment on scene versus patient outcome are necessary to provide evidence that this training can improve casualty outcome. The efficacy and validity of trauma cards for disaster management training need to be tested in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.