Impact of Ten Second Triage vs. Sieve on Triage Performance in Simulated Mass-Casualty Incidents

April 17, 2026 updated by: Stuby Loric

Impact on Triage Performance in Simulated Multiple-casualty Situations of TST (Ten Second Triage) Versus Sieve

This study will compare two emergency triage algorithm - Ten Second Triage (TST) versus Sieve - to see which one works better during simulated mass-casualty incidents. Triage is the process of quickly deciding which patients need immediate care when there are many injured people. Making fast and accurate decisions is essential in these situations.

Ambulance professionals and students in French-speaking Switzerland will be invited to take part. Participants will be randomly assigned to use either the TST method or the Sieve method. After a short introduction to the assigned method, each participant will complete two computer-based simulation scenarios involving 17 injured patients each (one scenario with penetrating injuries and one with blunt injuries). The simulated patients' conditions will change over time, similar to real-life emergencies using a physiological validated simulator (HUMAn).

The main goal is to measure how accurately participants identify patients who need immediate treatment. For each correct triage decision, participants receive one point. A total score will be calculated across both scenarios. If a sufficient sample size could be reached, a mixed effect logistic regression model will be generated to answer to research question.

The study will also measure how long participants take to make triage decisions, how often patients are over-triaged or under-triaged, and how easy participants find the method to use.

The results will help determine which triage method may be more effective for use by ambulance personnel during major incidents.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

201

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Canton of Geneva
      • Geneva, Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 1213
        • École supérieure de soins ambulanciers (ESAMB)

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Prehospital care professionals (e.g., ambulance personnel) or paramedic students
  • Practicing or training in French-speaking Switzerland
  • Likely to be involved in the management of major incidents or mass-casualty events
  • Provided informed consent to participate

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Participants who answered "No" to the statement confirming that their questionnaire responses reflect their usual personal practice
  • Participants who did not view the instructional video of the assigned triage algorithm (time spent on the video page is recorded), except participants randomized to the Sieve arm who routinely use the Sieve algorithm in their clinical practice

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Triple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Sieve
The control group will be provided with the Sieve triage algorithm.

Sieve (NARU) triage algorithm is a structured primary triage method used during mass-casualty incidents, developed and promoted by the National Ambulance Resilience Unit (NARU). It is designed to rapidly sort large numbers of patients based on simple physiological criteria.

The Sieve algorithm follows a stepwise assessment focusing on the ability to walk, breathing status and rate, and circulation (including signs of life-threatening hemorrhage). Patients are then assigned to standard triage categories (immediate, urgent, delayed, or deceased).

Sieve emphasizes consistency and reproducibility of triage decisions and is widely used in prehospital disaster response and training to support safe prioritization when resources are limited.

Experimental: TST
The experimental group will be provided with the Ten Seconde Triage algorithm

Ten Second Triage (TST) is a rapid primary triage algorithm designed for use in mass-casualty incidents. It aims to allow rescuers to assess and categorize a patient in approximately 10 seconds based on a small number of immediately observable clinical signs.

The algorithm focuses on key life-saving indicators such as ability to walk, presence of major external bleeding, airway status, breathing effectiveness, and level of consciousness. Based on these findings, patients are assigned to standard triage categories (e.g., immediate, urgent, delayed, or deceased).

TST prioritizes speed and simplicity to support rapid decision-making when resources are limited and many victims require simultaneous assessment.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Triage accuracy (triage score)
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour

Triage accuracy is defined as the proportion of correct triage decisions made by each participant across two simulated mass-casualty scenarios (34 patients in total).

For each simulated patient, participants receive: 1 point for a correct triage decision (0 points for an incorrect decision).

A triage decision is considered correct if the assigned priority category matches the simulated patient's expected clinical evolution based on the HUMAn dynamic simulation model (i.e., correct identification of patients requiring immediate treatment versus those who do not, including appropriate classification of deceased patients).

The primary endpoint is the total triage score per participant (range 0-34), calculated by summing correct decisions across both scenarios.

Through study completion, an average of 1 hour

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Triage duration
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Time required to assign a triage category to each simulated patient, measured automatically from first patient contact to final triage decision within the simulation platform. Results will be analyzed as mean triage time per patient and/or per participant.
Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Overtriage rate
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Proportion of patients assigned to a higher priority category than clinically indicated according to the reference standard (HUMAn simulation model). Expressed as a percentage of total triage decisions per participant.
Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Undertriage rate
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Proportion of patients assigned to a lower priority category than clinically indicated according to the reference standard. Expressed as a percentage of total triage decisions per participant.
Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
User satisfaction and perceived ease of use
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Participant-reported evaluation of the assigned triage algorithm, measured using a post-simulation questionnaire (e.g., Likert-scale items assessing clarity, ease of application, and overall satisfaction on a scale of 1 "Very unsatisfied/Not clear at all/Very difficult to apply to 5 "Very satisfied/Absolutely clear/Very easy to apply).
Through study completion, an average of 1 hour

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 13, 2026

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 13, 2026

Study Completion (Actual)

March 13, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 13, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 20, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

February 27, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 22, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 17, 2026

Last Verified

April 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

IPD Plan Description

The dataset will likely be shared in an open repository, but this still needs to be discussed with the entire study team.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Mass Casualty Incidents

Clinical Trials on Sieve triage algorithm

Subscribe