Mass Casualty IncidentsNCT07436052
Impact of Ten Second Triage vs. Sieve on Triage Performance in Simulated Mass-Casualty Incidents
A study testing Ten Second Triage algorithm and Sieve triage algorithm in people with Mass Casualty Incidents, run by Stuby Loric at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Mass Casualty Incidents
- What is being tested?
- Ten Second Triage algorithm and Sieve triage algorithm
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 201 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- 13 Feb 2026to 13 Mar 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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
Who cannot join
- 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
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Switzerland1 site
École supérieure de soins ambulanciers (ESAMB)
Geneva, Canton of Geneva, 1213
About this study
Official title: 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).
Read more
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.
- Conditions
- Mass Casualty Incidents
- Being tested
- Ten Second Triage algorithm, Sieve triage algorithm
- Keywords
- Mass casualty incident, Simulation, Randomized controlled trial, Triage accuracy, Emergency medical services (EMS), Ten Second Triage (TST), Overtriage and undertriage, Blunt and penetrating trauma, Sieve, Simulation-based, Major incident preparedness, Simulation training, Disaster medicine, Triage, Triage algorithms, Prehospital Triage, Emergency Medical Services
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ten Second Triage algorithmOther
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.
Sieve triage algorithmOther
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Sieve | Active comparator | The control group will be provided with the Sieve triage algorithm. Receives: Other: Sieve triage algorithm |
| TST | Experimental | The experimental group will be provided with the Ten Seconde Triage algorithm Receives: Other: Ten Second Triage algorithm |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Triage accuracy (triage score)
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.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Secondary outcomes (4)
Triage duration
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.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Overtriage rate
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.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Undertriage rate
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.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
User satisfaction and perceived ease of use
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).
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Feb 2026
- Study start13 Feb 2026
- Primary completion13 Mar 2026
- Study completion13 Mar 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Mass Casualty IncidentsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 201 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Stuby Loric
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- École Supérieure de Soins Ambulanciers - College of Higher Education in Prehospital Care, University Hospital, Geneva, HEIG-VD- Haute Ecole d'Ingénierie et de Gestion du Canton de Vaud
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Stuby Loric, Geneve TEAM Ambulances
- Investigators
- Loric Stuby, Principal investigator, Genève TEAM Ambulances
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07436052
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Sieve vs TST
- Status last verified
- Apr 2026
- First submitted
- 13 Feb 2026
- Last updated
- 22 Apr 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: The dataset will likely be shared in an open repository, but this still needs to be discussed with the entire study team.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Apr 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Impact on Triage Performance in Simulated Multiple-casualty Situations of TST (Ten Second Triage) Versus Sieve
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07436052
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Sieve vs TST
- Conditions
- Mass Casualty Incidents
- Keywords
- Mass casualty incident, Simulation, Randomized controlled trial, Triage accuracy, Emergency medical services (EMS), Ten Second Triage (TST), Overtriage and undertriage, Blunt and penetrating trauma
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 201 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Stuby LoricUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- École Supérieure de Soins Ambulanciers - College of Higher Education in Prehospital Care, University Hospital, Geneva, HEIG-VD- Haute Ecole d'Ingénierie et de Gestion du Canton de Vaud
- Study start
- 13 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 13 Mar 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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 design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Sieve | Active comparator | Other: Sieve triage algorithmThe control group will be provided with the Sieve triage algorithm. |
| TST | Experimental | Other: Ten Second Triage algorithmThe experimental group will be provided with the Ten Seconde Triage algorithm |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 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
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Ten Second Triage algorithmTen 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. | Other | TST |
| Sieve triage algorithmSieve (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. | Other | Sieve |
Primary outcome
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.
4 secondary outcomes
Triage duration
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Overtriage rate
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour
Undertriage rate
Time frame: 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
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Apr 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. The dataset will likely be shared in an open repository, but this still needs to be discussed with the entire study team.
Related trials for Mass Casualty Incidents
Not yet recruiting
Structured Debriefing and Institutional Trust After a Mass-Casualty Simulation
Mass-casualty Incident Preparedness
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Loric Stuby principal investigator
Genève TEAM Ambulances
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Ten Second Triage algorithm and Sieve triage algorithm in people with Mass Casualty Incidents, run by Stuby Loric at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Apr 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Triage accuracy (triage score) (time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 hour). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Apr 2026.