The University of Calgary conducted a rapid review of work on triage assessment in health crisis situations caused by infectious disease. The authors observed and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the selected triage tools in order to predict mortality, taking a total of 52 criteria, of which 29 were based on algorithms and 23 were based on a score, and 30 took into account the ethical criteria. Most of these instruments are not validated and their value as a predictor of mortality is modest, which determines that most of the proposed triage models have a high risk of bias and may be unreliable, hence the study proposes that a retrospective validation of the triage screening instruments be carried out to obtain acceptable values ​​in this regard. The opportunity to collect and compare this kind of information leads to a more adequate restructuring of the triage tools focused on making the selection without biases and taking into account the opinion of the community, which few studies take up in the evaluation.