Comparison of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology-Assisted Triage versus Standard Practice in Triaging Casualties by Paramedic Students in a Mass-Casualty Incident Scenario

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology has the potential to change the way medical incident commanders (ICs) respond to mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) in triaging victims. The aim of this study was to compare UAV technology to standard practice (SP) in triaging casualties at an MCI.MethodsA randomized comparison study was conducted with 40 paramedic students from the Holland College Paramedicine Program (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada). Using a simulated motor vehicle collision (MVC) with moulaged casualties, iterations of 20 students were used for both a day and a night trial. Students were randomized to a UAV or a SP group. After a brief narrative, participants either entered the study environment or used UAV technology where total time to triage completion, GREEN casualty evacuation, time on scene, triage order, and accuracy were recorded.ResultsA statistical difference in the time to completion of 3.63 minutes (95% CI, 2.45 min-4.85 min; P=.002) during the day iteration and a difference of 3.49 minutes (95% CI, 2.08 min-6.06 min; P=.002) for the night trial with UAV groups was noted. There was no difference found in time to GREEN casualty evacuation, time on scene, or triage order. One-hundred-percent accuracy was noted between both groups.Conclusion:This study demonstrated the feasibility of using a UAV at an MCI. A non-clinical significant difference was noted in total time to completion between both groups. There was no increase in time on scene by using the UAV while demonstrating the feasibility of remotely triaging GREEN casualties prior to first responder arrival.Jain T, Sibley A, Stryhn H, Hubloue I.Comparison of unmanned aerial vehicle technologyassisted triage versus standard practice in triaging casualties by paramedic students in a mass-casualty incident scenario. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(4):375–380