The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm: a randomized controlled trial

Acceptability Among Frontline Staff Toward Distributing an Anonymous Alcohol Survey in Emergency Departments: A Mixed Methods Study

ABSTRACT

Emergency departments (EDs) serve as the front line when patients encounter the hospital system. Limited data are available of patients' alcohol habits collected during Danish ED visits, and no studies have, to our knowledge, examined frontline staffs' (registered nurses and medical secretaries) acceptability to deliver anonymous alcohol surveys to patients. We aimed at examining the proportion of survey respondents and the prevalence of patients' alcohol habits and also exploring frontline staff acceptability of the distribution of an anonymous survey regarding patients' alcohol habits in EDs. Intendedly, all eligible patients ≥18 years old entering two EDs in March 2019 should receive a survey based on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. The study was an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods design, and results were analyzed with descriptive statistics and a deductive content analysis based on the theoretical framework of acceptability. In total, 15% (n = 1,305) of the total 8,679 patients in the EDs returned the survey. Qualitative analysis of interviews (n = 31) with staff showed that they had been reluctant to distribute the survey primarily because of ethical concerns of anonymity, freedom of choice, and being nonjudgmental toward patients. Hence, patients with no obvious alcohol problems were more likely to receive the survey. Still, we found that 23% of the respondents had an Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test score ≥ 8. Results indicate that frontline staffs' recognition of patients' alcohol use is inadequate, and findings show a low degree of acceptability among staff to deliver an anonymous survey, which is in line with earlier described barriers toward screening activities in EDs.

An updated national survey of triage and triage related work in Sweden: a cross-sectional descriptive and comparative study

BACKGROUND

Triage and triage related work has been performed in Swedish Emergency Departments (EDs) since the mid-1990s. According to two national surveys from 2005 to 2011, triage was carried out with different triage scales and without guidelines or formal education. Furthermore, a review from 2010 questioned the scientific evidence for both triage as a method as well as the Swedish five level triage scale Medical Emergency Triage and Treatment System (METTS); nevertheless, METTS was applied in 65% of the EDs in 2011. Subsequently, METTS was renamed to Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS©). The hypothesis for this study is that the method of triage is still applied nationally and that the use of METTS/RETTS© has increased. Hence, the aim is to describe the occurrence and application of triage and triage related work at Swedish Emergency Departments, in comparison with previous national surveys.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study with a descriptive and comparative design, an electronic questionnaire was developed, based on questionnaire from previous studies. The survey was distributed to all hospital affiliated EDs from late March to the middle of July in 2019. The data was analysed with descriptive statistics, by IBM SPSS Statistics, version 26.

RESULTS

Of the 51 (75%) EDs partaking in the study, all (100%) applied triage, and 92% used the Swedish triage scale RETTS©. Even so, there was low concordance in how RETTS© was applied regarding time frames i.e., how long a patient in respective triage level could wait for assessment by a physician. Additionally, the results show a major diversion in how the EDs performed education in triage.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that triage method is nationally implemented across Swedish EDs. RETTS© is the dominating triage scale but cannot be considered as one triage scale due to the variation with regard to time frames per triage level. Further, a diversion in introduction and education in the pivotal role of triage has been shown. This can be counteracted by national guidelines in what triage scale to use and how to perform triage education.

Abnormal routine blood tests as predictors of mortality in acutely admitted patients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to improve early risk stratification in the emergency department by creating a simple blood test score based on routine biomarkers and assess its predictive ability for 30-day mortality of acutely admitted patients.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from the TRIAGE II study. It included unselected acutely admitted medical and surgical patients, who had albumin, C-reactive protein, creatinine, haemoglobin, leukocytes, potassium, sodium and thrombocytes levels analysed upon admission. Patients were classified according to the number of biomarker results outside the reference range into four risk groups termed "very low", "low", "intermediate", and "high" with 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 and 6-8 abnormal biomarker results, respectively. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for 30-day mortality and receiver operating characteristic was used to test the discriminative value. The primary analysis was done in patients triaged with ADAPT (Adaptive Process Triage). Subsequently, we analysed two other cohorts of acutely admitted patients.

RESULTS

The TRIAGE II cohort included 17,058 eligible patients, 30-day mortality was 5.2%. The primary analysis included 7782 patients. Logistic regression adjusted for age and sex showed an OR of 24.1 (95% CI 14.9-41.0) between the very low- and the high-risk group. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.81) for the blood test score in predicting 30-day mortality. The subsequent analyses confirmed the results.

CONCLUSIONS

A blood test score based on number of routine biomarkers with an abnormal result was a predictor of 30-day mortality in acutely admitted patients.

Risk assessment models for potential use in the emergency department have lower predictive ability in older patients compared to the middle-aged for short-term mortality - a retrospective cohort study

Background

Older patients is a complex group at increased risk of adverse outcomes compared to younger patients, which should be considered in the risk assessment performed in emergency departments. We evaluated whether the predictive ability of different risk assessment models for acutely admitted patients is affected by age.

Methods

Cohort study of middle-aged and older patients. We investigated the accuracy in discriminating between survivors and non-survivors within 7 days of different risk assessment models; a traditional triage algorithm, a triage algorithm with clinical assessment, vital signs, routine biomarkers, and the prognostic biomarker soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR).

Results

The cohort included 22,653 (53.2%) middle-aged patients (age 40–69 years), and 19,889 (46.8%) older patients (aged 70+ years). Death within 7 days occurred in 139 patients (0.6%) in middle-aged patients and 596 (3.0%) of the older patients. The models based on vital signs and routine biomarkers had the highest area under the curve (AUC), and both were significantly better at discriminating 7-day mortality in middle-aged patients compared to older patients; AUC (95% CI): 0.88 (0.84–0.91), 0.75 (0.72–0.78), P < 0.01, and 0.86 (0.82–0.90), 0.76 (0.73–0.78), P < 0.001. In a subgroup of the total cohort (6.400 patients, 15.0%), the suPAR level was available. suPAR had the highest AUC of all individual predictors with no significant difference between the age groups, but further research in this biomarker is required before it can be used.

Conclusion

The predictive value was lower in older patients compared to middle-aged patients for all investigated models. Vital signs or routine biomarkers constituted the best models for predicting 7-day mortality and were better than the traditional triage model. Hence, the current risk assessment for short-term mortality can be strengthened, but modifications for age should be considered when constructing new risk assessment models in the emergency department.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1154-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm is non-inferior to a traditional triage algorithm: A cluster-randomized study

Introduction

Triage systems with limited room for clinical judgment are used by emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm (CTA) is a simplified triage system with a clinical assessment.

Methods

The trial was a non-inferiority, two-center cluster-randomized crossover study where CTA was compared to a local adaptation of Adaptive Process Triage (ADAPT). CTA involves initial categorization based on vital signs with a final modification based on clinical assessment by an ED nurse. We used 30-day mortality with a non-inferiority margin at 0.5%. Predictive performance was compared using Receiver Operator Characteristics.

Results

We included 45,347 patient visits, 23,158 (51%) and 22,189 (49%) were triaged with CTA and ADAPT respectively with a 30-day mortality of 3.42% and 3.43% (P = 0.996) a difference of 0.01% (95% CI: -0.34 to 0.33), which met the non-inferiority criteria. Mortality at 48 hours was 0.62% vs. 0.71%, (P = 0.26) and 6.38% vs. 6.61%, (P = 0.32) at 90 days for CTA and ADAPT. CTA triaged at significantly lower urgency level (P<0.001) and was superior in predicting 30-day mortality, Area under the curve: 0.67 (95% CI 0.65–0.69) compared to 0.64 for ADAPT (95% CI 0.62–0.66) (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in rate of admission to the intensive care unit, length of stay, waiting time nor rate of readmission within 30 or 90 days.

Conclusion

A novel triage system based on vital signs and a clinical assessment by an ED nurse was non-inferior to a traditional triage algorithm by short term mortality, and superior in predicting 30-day mortality.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02698319

Utility of multiple rule out CT screening of high-risk atraumatic patients in an emergency department-a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Several large trials have evaluated the effect of CT screening based on specific symptoms, with varying outcomes. Screening of patients with CT based on their prognosis alone has not been examined before. For moderate-to-high risk patients presenting in the emergency department (ED), the potential gain from a CT scan might outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. We hypothesized that an accelerated "multiple rule out" CT screening of moderate-to-high risk patients will detect many clinically unrecognized diagnoses that affect change in treatment.

METHOD

Patients ≥ 40 years, triaged as high-risk or moderate-to-high risk according to vital signs, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were scanned with a combined ECG-gated and dual energy CT scan of cerebrum, thorax, and abdomen. The impact of the CT scan on patient diagnosis and treatment was examined prospectively by an expert panel.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included in the study, (53% female, mean age 73 years [age range, 43-93]). The scan lead to change in treatment or additional examinations in 37 (37%) patients, of which 24 (24%) were diagnostically significant, change in acute treatment in 11 (11%) cases and previously unrecognized malignant tumors in 10 (10%) cases. The mean size specific radiation dose was 15.9 mSv (± 3.1 mSv).

CONCLUSION

Screening with a multi-rule out CT scan of high-risk patients in an ED is feasible and result in discovery of clinically unrecognized diagnoses and malignant tumors, but at the cost of radiation exposure and downstream examinations. The clinical impact of these findings should be evaluated in a larger randomized cohort.