Predictive validity comparison of two five-level triage acuity scales

Validation and comparison of triage-based screening strategies for sepsis

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to externally validate and compare proposed methods for stratifying sepsis risk at emergency department (ED) triage.

METHODS

This nested case/control study enrolled ED patients from four hospitals in Utah and evaluated the performance of previously-published sepsis risk scores amenable to use at ED triage based on their area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC, which balances positive predictive value and sensitivity) and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC, which balances sensitivity and specificity). Score performance for predicting whether patients met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was compared to patients' assigned ED triage score (Canadian Triage Acuity Score [CTAS]) with adjustment for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Among 2000 case/control patients, 981 met Sepsis-3 criteria on final adjudication. The best performing sepsis risk scores were the Predict Sepsis version #3 (AUPRC 0.183, 95 % CI 0.148-0.256; AUROC 0.859, 95 % CI 0.843-0.875) and Borelli scores (AUPRC 0.127, 95 % CI 0.107-0.160, AUROC 0.845, 95 % CI 0.829-0.862), which significantly outperformed CTAS (AUPRC 0.038, 95 % CI 0.035-0.042, AUROC 0.650, 95 % CI 0.628-0.671, p < 0.001 for all AUPRC and AUROC comparisons). The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited sensitivity of 0.670 and 0.678 and specificity of 0.902 and 0.834, respectively, at their recommended cutoff values and outperformed Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria (AUPRC 0.083, 95 % CI 0.070-0.102, p = 0.052 and p = 0.078, respectively; AUROC 0.775, 95 % CI 0.756-0.795, p < 0.001 for both scores).

CONCLUSIONS

The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited improved performance including increased specificity and positive predictive values for sepsis identification at ED triage compared to CTAS and SIRS criteria.

Five Level Triage vs. Four Level Triage in a Quaternary Emergency Department: National Analysis on Waiting Time, Validity, and Crowding-The CREONTE (Crowding and RE-Organization National TriagE) Study Group

Background and Objectives: Triage systems help provide the right care at the right time for patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs). Triage systems are generally used to subdivide patients into three to five categories according to the system used, and their performance must be carefully monitored to ensure the best care for patients. Materials and Methods: We examined ED accesses in the context of 4-level (4LT) and 5-level triage systems (5LT), implemented from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020. This study assessed the effects of a 5LT on wait times and under-triage (UT) and over-triage (OT). We also examined how 5LT and 4LT systems reflected actual patient acuity by correlating triage codes with severity codes at discharge. Other outcomes included the impact of crowding indices and 5LT system function during the COVID-19 pandemic in the study populations. Results: We evaluated 423,257 ED presentations. Visits to the ED by more fragile and seriously ill individuals increased, with a progressive increase in crowding. The length of stay (LOS), exit block, boarding, and processing times increased, reflecting a net raise in throughput and output factors, with a consequent lengthening of wait times. The decreased UT trend was observed after implementing the 5LT system. Conversely, a slight rise in OT was reported, although this did not affect the medium-high-intensity care area. Conclusions: Introducing a 5LT improved ED performance and patient care.

A longitudinal, retrospective registry-based validation study of RETTS©, the Swedish adult ED context version

BACKGROUND

Triage and triage related work has been performed in Swedish Emergency Departments (EDs) since the mid-1990s. The Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS©), with annual updates, is the most applied triage system. However, the national implementation has been performed despite low scientific foundation for triage as a method, mainly related to the absence of adjustment to age and gender. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies of RETTS© in Swedish ED context, especially of RETTS© validity. Hence, the aim the study was to determine the validity of RETTS©.

METHODS

A longitudinal retrospective register study based on cohort data from a healthcare region comprising two EDs in southern Sweden. Two editions of RETTS© was selected; year 2013 and 2016, enabling comparison of crude data, and adjusted for age-combined Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI) and gender. All patients ≥ 18 years visiting either of the two EDs seeing a physician, was included. Primary outcome was ten-day mortality, secondary outcome was admission to Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The data was analysed with descriptive, and inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Totally 74,845 patients were included. There was an increase in patients allocated red or orange triage levels (unstable) between the years, but a decrease of admission, both to general ward and ICU. Of all patients, 1031 (1.4%) died within ten-days. Both cohorts demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the triage levels, i.e. a higher risk for ten-day mortality and ICU admission for patients in all triage levels compared to those in green triage level. Furthermore, significant statistically differences were demonstrated for ICU admission, crude as well as adjusted, and for adjusted data ten-day mortality, indicating that ACCI explained ten-day mortality, but not ICU admission. However, no statistically significant difference was found for the two annual editions of RETTS© considering ten-day mortality, crude data.

CONCLUSION

The annual upgrade of RETTS© had no statistically significant impact on the validity of the triage system, considering the risk for ten-day mortality. However, the inclusion of ACCI, or at least age, can improve the validity of the triage system.

Acuity level of care as a predictor of case fatality and prolonged hospital stay in patients with COVID-19: a hospital-based observational follow-up study from Pakistan

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there is an association between acuity level of care (ALC), case fatality and length of stay in patients admitted to hospital due to COVID-19.

DESIGN

A hospital-based observational follow-up study.

SETTING

Internal Medicine Service of the Aga Khan University Hospital, Pakistan, from 26 February 2020 to 30 June 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, aged ≥18 years.

METHODS

ALC was categorised into low, intermediate and high level and patients were triaged using the standard emergency severity illness score. All patients were followed until the end of hospital admission for the outcome of case fatality and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 822 patients with COVID-19 were admitted during the study period and 699 met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 54.5 years and 67% were males; 50.4% were triaged to low, 42.5% to intermediate and 7.2% to high acuity care. The overall case-fatality rate was 11.6%, with the highest (52%) in high acuity level followed by 16.2% in intermediate and 2% in low acuity care. Acuity level was associated with case fatality, with an HR (95% CI) of 5.0 (2.0 to 12.1) for high versus low acuity care and an HR of 2.7 (1.2, 6.4) for intermediate versus low acuity care, after adjusting for age, sex and common comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and chronic lung disease. Similarly, acuity level was also associated with length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

High and intermediate acuity level is associated with higher case fatality rate and prolonged length of hospital stay in patients admitted with COVID-19. In resource-limited settings where the provision of high acuity care is limited, the intermediate care acuity could serve as a useful strategy to treat relatively less critical patients with COVID-19.

A Method for Grouping Emergency Department Visits by Severity and Complexity

INTRODUCTION

Triage functions to quickly prioritize care and sort patients by anticipated resource needs. Despite widespread use of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), there is still no universal standard for emergency department (ED) triage. Thus, it can be difficult to objectively assess national trends in ED acuity and resource requirements. We sought to derive an ESI from National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) survey items (NHAMCS-ESI) and to assess the performance of this index with respect to stratifying outcomes, including hospital admission, waiting times, and ED length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

We used data from the 2010-2015 NHAMCS, to create a measure of ED visit complexity based on variables within NHAMCS. We used NHAMCS data on chief complaint, vitals, resources used, interventions, and pain level to group ED visits into five levels of acuity using a stepwise algorithm that mirrored ESI. In addition, we examined associations of NHAMCS-ESI with typical indicators of acuity such as waiting time, LOS, and disposition. The NHAMCS-ESI categorization was also compared against the "immediacy" variable across all of these outcomes. Visit counts used weighted scores to estimate national levels of ED visits.

RESULTS

The NHAMCS ED visits represent an estimated 805,726,000 ED visits over this time period. NHAMCS-ESI categorized visits somewhat evenly, with most visits (42.5%) categorized as a level 3. The categorization pattern is distinct from that of the "immediacy" variable within NHAMCS. Of admitted patients, 89% were categorized as NHAMCS-ESI level 2-3. Median ED waiting times increased as NHAMCS-ESI levels decreased in acuity (from approximately 14 minutes to 25 minutes). Median LOS decreased as NHAMCS-ESI decreased from almost 200 minutes for level 1 patients to nearly 80 minutes for level 5 patients.

CONCLUSION

We derived an objective tool to measure an ED visit's complexity and resource use. This tool can be validated and used to compare complexity of ED visits across hospitals and regions, and over time.

Development and validation of the Heidelberg Neurological Triage System (HEINTS)

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Neurological syndromes are underrepresented in existing triage systems which are not validated for neurological patients; therefore, we developed and validated the new Heidelberg Neurological Triage System (HEINTS) in a prospective, single-center observational study.

METHODS

Patients were triaged according to the new triage system by nurses and physicians (stage 1) as well as trained nurses (stage 2). In stage 1, all patients presenting to the neurological emergency room (ER) were triaged by nurses and physicians. In stage 2, three specially trained nurses triaged patients according to HEINTS. The main outcomes comprised interrater agreement between nurses' and physicians' triage (stage 1), sensitivity and specificity to detect emergencies (stages 1 and 2), and improvement in triage quality as a result of training (stage 2), as well as correlation of HEINTS with hospital admissions and resource utilization.

RESULTS

In stage 1 (n = 2423 patients), sensitivity and specificity to detect neurological emergencies were 84.2% (SD 0.8%) and 85.4% (SD 0.8%) for nurses, as well as 92.4% (SD 0.6%) and 84.1% (SD 0.9%) for physicians, respectively. The interrater-reliability between nurses and physicians in stage 1 was moderate [Cohen's kappa 0.44, standard deviation (SD) 0.02]. In stage 2 (n = 506 patients), sensitivity of trained nurses increased to 94.3% (SD 1.0%), while specificity decreased to 74.8% (SD 1.9%). Correlation of HEINTS triage with hospital admission and resource utilization in both stages was highly significant.

CONCLUSIONS

HEINTS predicted hospital admissions and resource utilization. Agreement between nurses and physicians was moderate. HEINTS, applied by physicians and by nurses after training, reliably detected neurological emergencies.

Performance of triage systems in emergency care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the performance of triage systems for identifying high and low-urgency patients in the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline OvidSP, Cochrane central, Web of science and CINAHL databases from 1980 to 2016 with the final update in December 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies that evaluated an emergency medical triage system, assessed validity using any reference standard as proxy for true patient urgency and were written in English. Studies conducted in low(er) income countries, based on case scenarios or involving less than 100 patients were excluded.

REVIEW METHODS

Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence independently and in duplicate. The Quality Assessment of studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews -2 checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Raw data were extracted to create 2×2 tables and calculate sensitivity and specificity. ED patient volume and casemix severity of illness were investigated as determinants of triage systems' performance.

RESULTS

Sixty-six eligible studies evaluated 33 different triage systems. Comparisons were restricted to the three triage systems that had at least multiple evaluations using the same reference standard (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, Emergency Severity Index and Manchester Triage System). Overall, validity of each triage system to identify high and low-urgency patients was moderate to good, but performance was highly variable. In a subgroup analysis, no clear association was found between ED patient volume or casemix severity of illness and triage systems' performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Established triage systems show a reasonable validity for the triage of patients at the ED, but performance varies considerably. Important research questions that remain are what determinants influence triage systems' performance and how the performance of existing triage systems can be improved.

NHAMCS Validation of Emergency Severity Index as an Indicator of Emergency Department Resource Utilization

Introduction

Triage systems play a vital role in emergency department (ED) operations and can determine how well a given ED serves its local population. We sought to describe ED utilization patterns for different triage levels using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) database.

Methods

We conducted a multi-year secondary analysis of the NHAMCS database from 2009-2011. National visit estimates were made using standard methods in Analytics Software and Solutions (SAS, Cary, NC). We compared patients in the mid-urgency range in regard to ED lengths of stay, hospital admission rates, and numbers of tests and procedures in comparison to lower or higher acuity levels.

Results

We analyzed 100,962 emergency visits (representing 402,211,907 emergency visits nationwide). In 2011, patients classified as triage levels 1–3 had a higher number of diagnoses (5.5, 5.6 and 4.2, respectively) when compared to those classified as levels 4 and 5 (1.61 and 1.25). This group also underwent a higher number of procedures (1.0, 0.8 and 0.7, versus 0.4 and 0.4), had a higher ED length of stay (220, 280 and 237, vs. 157 and 135), and admission rates (32.2%, 32.3% and 15.5%, vs. 3.1% and 3.6%).

Conclusion

Patients classified as mid-level (3) triage urgency require more resources and have higher indicators of acuity as those in triage levels 4 and 5. These patients’ indicators are more similar to those classified as triage levels 1 and 2.

Characteristics and outcomes of older emergency department patients assigned a low acuity triage score

Objective

Although older patients are a high-risk population in the emergency department (ED), little is known about those identified as “less acute” at triage. We aimed to describe the outcomes of patients ages 65 years and older who receive low acuity triage scores.

Methods

This health records review assessed ED patients who were ages 65 years and above or ages 40 to 55 years (controls) who received a Canadian Triage Acuity Scale score of 4 or 5. Data collected included patient demographics, ED management, disposition, and a return visit or hospital admission at 14 days. Data were analysed descriptively and chi-square testing performed. A pre-planned stratified analysis of patients ages 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 and older was conducted.

Results

Three hundred fifty older patients with a mean age of 76.5 years and 150 control patients were included. Most patients presented with musculoskeletal or skin complaints and were triaged to the ambulatory care area. Older patients were significantly more likely than controls to be admitted on the index visit (5.0% v. 0.3%, p=0.016) and on re-presentation (4.0% v. 0.7%, p=0.045). In a subgroup analysis, patients ages 85 years and above were most likely to be admitted (8.9%, p=0.003).

Conclusions

Older patients who present to the ED with issues labelled as “less acute” at triage are 16 times more likely to be admitted than younger controls. Patients ages 85 years and up are the primary drivers of this higher admission rate. Our study indicates that even “low acuity” elders presenting to the ED are at risk for re-presentation and admission within 14 days.

Five-level emergency triage systems: variation in assessment of validity

INTRODUCTION

Triage systems are scales developed to rate the degree of urgency among patients who arrive at EDs. A number of different scales are in use; however, the way in which they have been validated is inconsistent. Also, it is difficult to define a surrogate that accurately predicts urgency. This systematic review described reference standards and measures used in previous validation studies of five-level triage systems.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL to identify studies that had assessed the validity of five-level triage systems and described the reference standards and measures applied in these studies. Studies were divided into those using criterion validity (reference standards developed by expert panels or triage systems already in use) and those using construct validity (prognosis, costs and resource use).

RESULTS

A total of 57 studies examined criterion and construct validity of 14 five-level triage systems. Criterion validity was examined by evaluating (1) agreement between the assigned degree of urgency with objective standard criteria (12 studies), (2) overtriage and undertriage (9 studies) and (3) sensitivity and specificity of triage systems (7 studies). Construct validity was examined by looking at (4) the associations between the assigned degree of urgency and measures gauged in EDs (48 studies) and (5) the associations between the assigned degree of urgency and measures gauged after hospitalisation (13 studies). Particularly, among 46 validation studies of the most commonly used triages (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, Emergency Severity Index and Manchester Triage System), 13 and 39 studies examined criterion and construct validity, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Previous studies applied various reference standards and measures to validate five-level triage systems. They either created their own reference standard or used a combination of severity/resource measures.

One-two-triage: validation and reliability of a novel triage system for low-resource settings

Objectives

To validate and assess reliability of a novel triage system, one-two-triage (OTT), that can be applied by inexperienced providers in low-resource settings.

Methods

This study was a two-phase prospective, comparative study conducted at three hospitals. Phase I assessed criterion validity of OTT on all patients arriving at an American university hospital by comparing agreement among three methods of triage: OTT, Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and physician-defined acuity (the gold standard). Agreement was reported in normalised and raw-weighted Cohen κ using two different scales for weighting, Expert-weighted and triage-weighted κ. Phase II tested reliability, reported in Fleiss κ, of OTT using standardised cases among three groups of providers at an urban and rural Cambodian hospital and the American university hospital.

Results

Normalised for prevalence of patients in each category, OTT and ESI performed similarly well for expert-weighted κ (OTT κ=0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; ESI κ=0.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.53) and triage-weighted κ (κ=0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.61; ESI κ=0.57, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.64). Without normalising, agreement with gold standard was less for both systems but performance of OTT and ESI remained similar, expert-weighted (OTT κ=0.57, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.62; ESI κ=0.6, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.66) and triage-weighted (OTT κ=0.31, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.38; ESI κ=0.41, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.4). In the reliability phase, all triagers showed fair inter-rater agreement, Fleiss κ (κ=0.308).

Conclusions

OTT can be reliably applied and performs as well as ESI compared with gold standard, but requires fewer resources and less experience.

Acuity Assessment in Obstetrical Triage

OBJECTIVE

A five-category Obstetrical Triage Acuity Scale (OTAS) was developed with a comprehensive set of obstetrical determinants. The purposes of this study were: (1) to compare the inter-rater reliability (IRR) in tertiary and community hospital settings and measure the intra-rater reliability (ITR) of OTAS; (2) to establish the validity of OTAS; and (3) to present the first revision of OTAS from the National Obstetrical Triage Working Group.

METHODS

To assess IRR, obstetrical triage nurses were randomly selected from London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) (n = 8), Stratford General Hospital (n = 11), and Chatham General Hospital (n= 7) to assign acuity levels to clinical scenarios based on actual patient visits. At LHSC, a group of nurses were retested at nine months to measure ITR. To assess validity, OTAS acuity level was correlated with measures of resource utilization.

RESULTS

OTAS has significant and comparable IRR in a tertiary care hospital and in two community hospitals. Repeat assessment in a cohort of nurses demonstrated significant ITR. Acuity level correlated significantly with performance of routine and second order laboratory investigations, point of care ultrasound, nursing work load, and health care provider attendance. A National Obstetrical Triage Working Group was formed and guided the first revision. Four acuity modifiers were added based on hemodynamics, respiratory distress, cervical dilatation, and fetal well-being.

CONCLUSION

OTAS is the first obstetrical triage scale with established reliability and validity. OTAS enables standardized assessments of acuity within and across institutions. Further, it facilitates assessment of patient care and flow based on acuity.

Reliability of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: interrater and intrarater agreement from a community and an academic emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is a five-level triage tool that is used to help prioritize the order in which emergency department (ED) patients should be seen. The objectives of this study were to determine the interrater and intrarater agreement of the 2008 CTAS guideline revisions by triage nurses and to compare agreement between triage nurses working in a small community ED and an academic ED.

METHODS

Seventy-eight triage nurses assigned CTAS scores and free-text presenting complaints for 10 paper-based case scenarios. For five scenarios, the CTAS score should have remained unchanged from previous guidelines, whereas the other five scenarios should have been triaged differently based on the 2008 CTAS first-order modifiers. Thirty-three participants repeated the questionnaire 90 days later, and intrarater agreement was measured.

RESULTS

There was a higher level of agreement (κ  =  0.73; 95% CI 0.68-0.79) for the five case scenarios, which relied on the older 2004 guidelines compared to the scenarios where the 2008 guidelines would have suggested a different triage level (κ  =  0.50; 95% CI 0.42-0.59). For the 10 case scenarios analyzed, the free-text presenting complaints matched the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) list 90.1% of the time (κ  =  0.80; 95% CI 0.76-0.84).

CONCLUSION

The reliability of CTAS scoring by academic and community ED nurses was relatively good; however, the application of the 2008 CTAS revisions appears less reliable than the 2004 CTAS guidelines. These results may be useful to develop educational materials to strengthen reliability and validity for triage scoring using the 2008 CTAS guideline revisions.

Predictors of admission to hospital of patients triaged as nonurgent using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors known prior to triage that might have predicted hospital admission for patients triaged by the Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS) as level 5 (CTAS 5, nonurgent) and to determine whether inappropriate triage occurred in the admitted CTAS 5 patients.

METHODS

We reviewed the triage records of patients triaged as CTAS 5 at the emergency departments (EDs) of three tertiary care hospitals between April 2002 and September 2009. Two triage nurses unaware of the study objective independently assigned the CTAS level in 20% of randomly selected CTAS 5 patients who were admitted. We used the kappa statistic (κ) to measure the agreement among the raters in CTAS level between the assessment of the research nurses and the original triage assessment and regression analysis to identify independent predictors of admission to hospital.

RESULTS

Of the 37,416 CTAS 5 patients included in this study, 587 (1.6%) were admitted. Agreement on CTAS assignment in CTAS 5 patients who were admitted was κ -0.9, (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.96 to -0.84). Age over 65 (odds ratio [OR] 5.46, 95% CI 4.57 to 6.53) and arrival by ambulance (OR 7.42, 95% CI 6.15 to 8.96) predicted hospital admission in CTAS 5 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the CTAS 5 patients who were subsequently admitted to hospital may have qualified for a higher triage category. Two potential modifiers, age over 65 and arrival by ambulance, may have improved the prediction of admission in CTAS 5 patients. However, the consistent application of existing CTAS criteria may also be important to prevent incorrect triage.

Common Diagnoses and Outcomes in Elderly Patients Who Present to the Emergency Department with Non-Specific Complaints

OBJECTIVE

Elderly patients often present to the emergency department (ED) with non-specific complaints. Previous studies indicate that such patients are at greater risk for life-threatening illnesses than similarly aged patients with specific complaints. We evaluated the diagnoses and outcomes of elderly patients presenting with non-specific complaints.

METHODS

Two trained data abstractors independently reviewed all records of patients over 70 years old presenting (to two academic EDs) with non-specific complaints, as defined by the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS). Outcomes of interest were ED discharge diagnosis, hospital admission, length of stay, and ED revisit within 30 days.

RESULTS

Of the 743 patients screened for the study, 265 were excluded because they had dizziness, vertigo, or a specific complaint recorded in the triage notes. 419 patients (87.7%) presented with weakness and 59 patients (12.3%) presented with general fatigue or unwellness. The most common diagnoses were urinary tract infection (UTI) (11.3%), transient ischemic attack (TIA) (10.0%), and dehydration (5.6%). There were 11 hospital admissions with median length of stay of five days. Eighty-one (16.9%) patients revisited the ED within 30 days of discharge. Regression analysis indicated that arrival to the ED by ambulance was independently associated with hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that elderly patients presenting to the ED with non-specific complaints are not at high risk for life-threatening illnesses. The most common diagnoses are UTI, TIA, and dehydration. Most patients can be discharged safely, although a relatively high proportion revisit the ED within 30 days.

Outcomes for emergency severity index triage implementation in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Hospital triage scale in emergency departments needs to be valid and reliable. Lack of sufficient data exists on triage scale rigor in emergency departments of Iran. This study aimed to determine the impact of the emergency severity index (ESI) triage scale in the emergency department.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center study was conducted. Proportion of triage categories allocated to high-risk patients admitted to high-acuity departments was examined in observational period in June 2012 and May 2013. True triage score was reported based on patients` paper- based scenario questionnaire. Interrater reliability was assessed using unweighted kappa. Concordance among experts, nurses and physicians was examined. The Chi-square test and Kappa statistics was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Triage decisions regarding high-risk patients before and after implementation period are independent from each other (χ2= 22.254; df=1; p<0.05) and more high-risk patients were recognized after implementation of the ESI. Overall agreement and concordance were (79%) and (κ=0.54) among nurses; (71%) and (κ=0.45) among physicians, (85%) and (κ=0.81) among experts, respectively. Correct triage decisions among clinicians were increased after implementation of the ESI.

CONCLUSION

The ESI as valid and reliable tool improving desirable outcomes` in the emergency department has been recommended but it may not reveal optimal outcomes in developing countries comparing to what have been achieved in the developed countries. In addition, patient influx in ESI level II could create considerable controversy with clinicians.

A systematic review on the validity and reliability of an emergency department triage scale, the Manchester Triage System

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review to check the level of validity and reliability of the Manchester Triage System and the quality of reporting of literature on this topic.

DESIGN

This is a systematic review based on the PRISMA guideline on reporting systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

The systematic search of the international literature published from 1997 through 30 November 2012 in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases.

REVIEW METHODS

This review included quantitative and qualitative research investigating the reliability and validity of the Manchester Triage System for the broad population of adults and children visiting the emergency department. After a systematic selection process, included studies were assessed on their quality by three researchers using the STARD guidelines.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the review. The studies investigated the inter- and intra-rater reliability using the "kappa" statistic; the validity was tested with many measures: validity in predicting mortality, hospital admission, under- and overtriage, used resources, and length of stay in the emergency department, as well as a reference standard rating.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review, the Manchester Triage System shows a wide inter-rater agreement range with a prevalence of good and very good agreement. Its safety was low because of the high rate of undertriage and the low sensitivity in predicting higher urgency levels. The high rate of overtriage could cause unnecessarily high use of resources in the emergency department. The quality of the reporting in studies of the reliability and validity of the Manchester Triage System is good.

Implementing an obstetric triage acuity scale: interrater reliability and patient flow analysis

A 5-category Obstetric Triage Acuity Scale (OTAS) was developed with a comprehensive set of obstetrical determinants. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to test the interrater reliability of OTAS and (2) to determine the distribution of patient acuity and flow by OTAS level. To test the interrater reliability, 110 triage charts were used to generate vignettes and the consistency of the OTAS level assigned by 8 triage nurses was measured. OTAS performed with substantial (Kappa, 0.61 - 0.77, OTAS 1-4) and near perfect correlation (0.87, OTAS 5). To assess patient flow, the times to primary and secondary health care provider assessments and lengths of stay stratified by acuity were abstracted from the patient management system. Two-thirds of triage visits were low acuity (OTAS 4, 5). There was a decrease in length of stay (median [interquartile range], minutes) as acuity decreased from OTAS 1 (120.0 [156.0] minutes) to OTAS 3 (75.0 [120.8]). The major contributor to length of stay was time to secondary health care provider assessment and this did not change with acuity. The percentage of patients admitted to the antenatal or birthing unit decreased from 80% (OTAS 1) to 12% (OTAS 5). OTAS provides a reliable assessment of acuity and its implementation has allowed for triaging of obstetric patients based on acuity, and a more in-depth assessment of the patient flow. By standardizing assessment, OTAS allows for opportunities to improve performance and make comparisons of patient care and flow across organizations.

Modern triage in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Because the volume of patient admissions to an emergency department (ED) cannot be precisely planned, the available resources may become overwhelmed at times ("crowding"), with resulting risks for patient safety. The aim of this study is to identify modern triage instruments and assess their validity and reliability.

METHODS

Review of selected literature retrieved by a search on the terms "emergency department" and "triage."

RESULTS

Emergency departments around the world use different triage systems to assess the severity of incoming patients' conditions and assign treatment priorities. Our study identified four such instruments: the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS), the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), the Manchester Triage System (MTS), and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Triage instruments with 5 levels are superior to those with 3 levels in both validity and reliability (p<0.01). Good to very good reliability has been shown for the best-studied instruments, CTAS and ESI (κ-statistics: 0.7 to 0.95), while ATS and MTS have been found to be only moderately reliable (κ-statistics: 0.3 to 0.6). MTS and ESI are both available in German; of these two, only the ESI has been validated in German-speaking countries.

CONCLUSION

Five-level triage systems are valid and reliable methods for assessment of the severity of incoming patients' conditions by nursing staff in the emergency department. They should be used in German emergency departments to assign treatment priorities in a structured and dependable fashion.

An observational study of patients triaged in category 5 of the Emergency Severity Index

OBJECTIVE

Patients triaged in category 5 of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) do not need any resources before discharge from the emergency department (ED). We studied the characteristics of these patients and focused on those who were admitted or sent to the outpatient department after their ED visit.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted on 117 740 patient presentations. Patients were included in the study when they were triaged with the ESI and presented to one of the two EDs under study between 1 September 2004 and 1 June 2006.

RESULTS

Overall, 22.2% of the patients were triaged in ESI 5. Patients aged less than 40 years, women, and self-referred patients were most likely triaged in ESI 5, as well as patients presenting with complaints such as 'checkup appointments at the ED' and 'complaints of the skin'. Patients triaged in ESI 5 who were admitted or sent to the outpatient department were most likely elderly (aged above 65 years) and referred patients. They were also more likely to present with complaints such as 'postoperative complications, wound care problems, and plaster problems' and 'complaints of the genitourinary system'.

CONCLUSION

Although younger patients and women were more likely triaged in ESI 5, patients within this category who were admitted or sent to the outpatient department were more likely elderly and referred patients. Being admitted or sent to the outpatient department and triaged in ESI 5 indicates undertriage. Revision of the system is required to properly account for these patient groups.

Reliability and validity of two four-level emergency triage systems

OBJECTIVE

To measure and compare the reliability and predictive validity of a four-level triage system (I-4L) and the new four-level model triage emergency method (TEM).

METHODS

This observational study was conducted in an urban hospital. Ten nurses were randomly selected to assign a triage level to 189 paper scenarios, using either the I-4L model (5 nurses) or the TEM model (5 nurses). We used weighted kappa statistics to measure the interrater and intrarater reliability of each triage tool and assessed the validity of each models based on the accuracy in predicting admission.

RESULTS

Interrater reliability was kappa=0.73 [95% CI (confidence interval): 0.59-0.87] and kappa=0.79 (95% CI: 0.65-0.93) with I-4L and TEM, respectively. Intrarater reliability was kappa=0.82 (95% CI: 0.67-0.96) and kappa=0.78 (95% CI: 0.62-0.93), respectively. The accuracy of triage rating for admission prediction was similarly good with I-4L and TEM, namely, 79% (95% CI: 74-85) and 77% (95% CI: 74-85). The proportion of patients admitted per triage level was similar with the two models.

CONCLUSION

The interrater and intrarater reliability for rating triage acuity and for accuracy in patient admission prediction was good with both models. Performance with the new model was similar to that of I-4L despite the nurses' short experience. The new TEM model has the advantage of predicting utilization of emergency department resources.

Effects of a triage process conversion on the triage of high-risk presentations

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine effects of a modification in triage process on triage acuity distribution in general and among patients with conditions requiring time-sensitive therapy.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed triage acuity distributions before and after modification of their triage process that entailed conversion from the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). The authors calculated the ratio of the odds of being triaged to a nonemergent level (3, 4, or 5) under ESI to the odds of being triaged as nonemergent under CTAS. The authors calculated sensitivity and specificity of triage to an emergent acuity level (1 or 2) for identifying patients with common presentations who required time-sensitive care.

RESULTS

There were shifts from higher to lower acuity levels for all subsets, with odds ratios ranging from 2.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75 to 2.86) for all patients to 21.39 (95% CI = 14.66 to 31.21) for patients over 55 years of age with a chief complaint of chest pain. The sensitivity of triage for identifying abdominal pain patients requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or operating room (OR) or emergency department (ED) death was 80.7% (95% CI = 73.2 to 86.5) before versus 50.8% (95% CI = 43.5 to 58.1) following the transition to ESI. Specificity under CTAS, 55.2% (95% CI = 54.0 to 56.4), was significantly lower than under ESI, 83.6% (95% CI = 82.7 to 84.4). The authors found similar effects for patients presenting with chest pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring for changes in the sensitivity of the triage process for detecting patients with potentially time-sensitive conditions should be considered when modifying triage processes. Further work should be done to determine if the decreased sensitivity seen in this study occurs in other institutions converting to ESI, and potential causative factors should be explored.