JumpSTART Triage Protocol in Disaster Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Literature Review

• Published in: Prehospital and disaster medicine 2022-04, Vol.37 (2), p.240-246
• Main Authors: Stéfani, Giovanna M., de Melo, Murilo E., Zardeto, Heloísa N., Costa, Victor S. L. P., Lima, Fabiana S., Cola, Maíra
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Algorithms; Bias; Children & youth; Clinical decision making; Disasters; Emergency medical care; Literature reviews; Pediatrics; Population; Systematic Review
• ISSN: 1049-023X; 1945-1938
• DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X22000127

In a mass-casualty incident (MCI) involving children, there is a need to apply accurate triage tools in order to help those who require important care, and at the same time, to avoid unnecessary use of resources. Thus, it is discussed which would be the best triage device to use in these situations. One of the most used is a modification of Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment, JumpSTART, whose performative quality this review focuses on. This review sought to compare the performance parameters of JumpSTART with other triage algorithms used in pediatric disaster victims. This systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews with the number CRD42021258415. The last update of the search in the databases was on August 12, 2021 and resulted in six documents to be analyzed. The inclusion criteria included the peer-reviewed academic papers in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian languages, and the databases used were PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE/Bireme (Virtual Library of Health), Web of Science, and CINAHL, which executes the query on the topic, keywords, or abstracts. Also to be included, documents that were available with full-text access through CAPES, Google, or Google Scholar. Books, non-academic research, and content in languages other than the presented ones were represented as exclusion criteria. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists were used to evaluate the methodological quality of the retrieved studies. The results were presented through narrative synthesis. This review was not funded. Of the collected publications, five articles were used to carry out this review, with the addition of an extra article captured by citation tracking. The findings from the obtained results were that JumpSTART was the preferred tool and presented the fastest speed of use. Only one of the five studies that dealt with accuracy showed JumpSTART as the most accurate algorithm, while three of the other four showed its inferiority in most aspects. In one study, no significant difference was observed amongst the chosen protocols. There is insufficient evidence to validate JumpSTART as a universal triage tool, given the disparities in the results obtained from the comparisons. No tool performed satisfactorily well, therefore there is an urgent need to create a reliable algorithm.