How reliable is emergency department triage?

Can paramedics using guidelines accurately triage patients?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine whether paramedics, using written guidelines, can accurately triage patients in the field.

METHODS

This prospective, descriptive study was conducted at an urban county emergency medical services (EMS) system and county hospital. Paramedics triaged patients, for study purposes only, according to 4 categories: (1) needing to come to the emergency department by advanced life support (ALS) transport, (2) needing to come to the ED by any transport, (3) needing to see a physician within 24 hours, or (4) not needing any further physician evaluation. Medical records that provided patient treatment information to the point of ED disposition were subsequently reviewed (blinded to the paramedic rating) to determine which of the categories was appropriate. The protocol of the EMS system of the study site dictates that all patients should be transported except for those who refuse care and leave against medical advice. Only transported patients were included in the present study. Fifty-four paramedics triaged 1,180 patients.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 43.4+/-17 years; 62.0% were male. Paramedics rated 1,000 (84.7%) of the patients as needing to come to the ED and 180 (15.3%) as not needing to come to the ED. Ratings according to triage category were as follows: 804 (68.1%) category 1, 196 (16.6%) category 2, 148 (12.5%) category 3, and 32 (2.7%) category 4. Seven hundred thirty-six (62.4%) patients were discharged, 298 (25.3%) were admitted, 90 (7.6%) were transferred, 36 (3.1%) left against medical advice, and 20 (1.7%) died. The review panel determined that 113 (9.6%) patients were undertriaged; 55 (48.7%) of these patients were misclassified because the paramedics misused the guidelines. Ninety-nine patients (8.4% of the total sample) were incorrectly classified as not needing to come to the ED. This represented 55% of the patients (99/180) categorized as 3 or 4 by the paramedics. Fourteen patients (1.2% of total) were incorrectly classified as category 4 instead of 3. Of the 113 undertriaged patients, 22 (19.6%) were admitted, 86 (76.1%) were discharged, and 4 (3.5%) were transferred.

CONCLUSION

Paramedics using written guidelines fall short of an acceptable level of triage accuracy to determine disposition of patients in the field.

Implementation and refinement of the emergency severity index

OBJECTIVES

To implement a new five-level emergency department (ED) triage algorithm, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), into nursing practice, and validate the instrument with a population-based cohort using hospitalization and ED length of stay as outcome measures.

METHODS

The five-level ESI algorithm was introduced to triage nurses at two university hospital EDs, and implemented into practice with reinforcement and change management strategies. Interrater reliability was assessed by a posttest and by a series of independent paired patient triage assignments, and a staff survey was performed. A cohort validation study of all adult patients registered during a one-month period immediately following implementation was performed.

RESULTS

Eight thousand two hundred fifty-one ED patients were studied. Weighted kappa for reproducibility of triage assignments was 0.80 for the posttest (n = 62 nurses), and 0.73 for patient triages (n = 219). Hospitalization was 28% overall and was strongly associated with triage level, decreasing from 58/63 (92%) of patients in triage category 1, to 12/739 (2%) in triage category 5. Median lengths of stay were two hours shorter at either triage extreme (high and low acuity) than in intermediate categories. Outcomes followed a-priori predictions. Staff nurses rated the new program easier to use, and more useful as a triage instrument than previous three-level triage. They provided feedback, which resulted in significant revisions to the algorithm and educational materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Triage nurses at these two hospitals successfully implemented the ESI algorithm and provided useful feedback for further refinement of the instrument. Emergency Severity Index triage reproducibly stratifies patients into five groups with distinct clinical outcomes.

Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument

OBJECTIVES

Triage is the initial clinical sorting process in hospital emergency departments (EDs). Because of poor reproducibility and validity of three-level triage, the authors developed and validated a new five-level triage instrument, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). The study objectives were: 1) to validate the triage instrument against ED patients' clinical resource and hospitalization needs, and 2) to measure the interrater reliability (reproducibility) of the instrument.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational cohort study of a population-based convenience sample of adult patients triaged during 100 hours at two urban referral hospitals. Validation by resource use and hospitalization (criterion standards) and reproducibility by blinded paired triage assignments compared with weighted kappa analysis were assessed.

RESULTS

Five hundred thirty-eight patients were enrolled; 45 were excluded due to incomplete evaluations. The resulting cohort of 493 patients was 52% female, was 26% nonwhite, and had a median age of 40 years (range 16-95); overall, 159 (32%) patients were hospitalized. Weighted kappa for triage assignment was 0.80 (95% CI = 0.76 to 0.84). Resource use and hospitalization rates were strongly associated with triage level. For patients in category 5, only one-fourth (17/67) required any diagnostic test or procedure, and none were hospitalized (upper confidence limit, 5%). Conversely, in category 1, one of twelve patients was discharged (upper confidence limit, 25%), and none required fewer than two resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This five-level triage instrument was shown to be both valid and reliable in the authors' practice settings. It reproducibly triages patients into five distinct strata, from very high hospitalization/resource intensity to very low hospitalization/resource intensity.