32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Reliability of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: Meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Although the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) have been developed since two decades ago, the reliability of the CTAS has not been questioned comparing to moderating variable.

          Aims:

          The study was to provide a meta-analytic review of the reliability of the CTAS in order to reveal to what extent the CTAS is reliable.

          Materials and Methods:

          Electronic databases were searched to March 2014. Only studies were included that had reported samples size, reliability coefficients, adequate description of the CTAS reliability assessment. The guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were used. Two reviewers independently examined abstracts and extracted data. The effect size was obtained by the z-transformation of reliability coefficients. Data were pooled with random-effects models and meta-regression was done based on method of moments estimator.

          Results:

          Fourteen studies were included. Pooled coefficient for the CTAS was substantial 0.672 (CI 95%: 0.599-0.735). Mistriage is less than 50%. Agreement upon the adult version, among nurse-physician and near countries is higher than pediatrics version, other raters and farther countries, respectively.

          Conclusion:

          The CTAS showed acceptable level of overall reliability in the emergency department but need more development to reach almost perfect agreement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Emergency Department Triage Scales and Their Components: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence

          Emergency department (ED) triage is used to identify patients' level of urgency and treat them based on their triage level. The global advancement of triage scales in the past two decades has generated considerable research on the validity and reliability of these scales. This systematic review aims to investigate the scientific evidence for published ED triage scales. The following questions are addressed: 1. Does assessment of individual vital signs or chief complaints affect mortality during the hospital stay or within 30 days after arrival at the ED? 2. What is the level of agreement between clinicians' triage decisions compared to each other or to a gold standard for each scale (reliability)? 3. How valid is each triage scale in predicting hospitalization and hospital mortality? A systematic search of the international literature published from 1966 through March 31, 2009 explored the British Nursing Index, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed. Inclusion was limited to controlled studies of adult patients (≥15 years) visiting EDs for somatic reasons. Outcome variables were death in ED or hospital and need for hospitalization (validity). Methodological quality and clinical relevance of each study were rated as high, medium, or low. The results from the studies that met the inclusion criteria and quality standards were synthesized applying the internationally developed GRADE system. Each conclusion was then assessed as having strong, moderately strong, limited, or insufficient scientific evidence. If studies were not available, this was also noted. We found ED triage scales to be supported, at best, by limited and often insufficient evidence. The ability of the individual vital signs included in the different scales to predict outcome is seldom, if at all, studied in the ED setting. The scientific evidence to assess interrater agreement (reliability) was limited for one triage scale and insufficient or lacking for all other scales. Two of the scales yielded limited scientific evidence, and one scale yielded insufficient evidence, on which to assess the risk of early death or hospitalization in patients assigned to the two lowest triage levels on a 5-level scale (validity).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Modern triage in the emergency department.

            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. Review of selected literature retrieved by a search on the terms "emergency department" and "triage." 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. 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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analyses of agreement between diagnoses made from clinical evaluations and standardized diagnostic interviews.

              Standardized diagnostic interviews (SDIs) have become de facto gold standards for clinical research. However, because clinical practitioners seldom use SDIs, it is essential to determine how well SDIs agree with clinical diagnoses. In meta-analyses of 38 articles published from 1995 to 2006 (N = 15,967 probands), mean kappas (z-transformed) between diagnoses from clinical evaluations versus SDIs were 0.27 for a broad category of all disorders, 0.29 for externalizing disorders, and 0.28 for internalizing disorders. Kappas for specific disorders ranged from 0.19 for generalized anxiety disorder to 0.86 for anorexia nervosa (median = 0.48). For diagnostic clusters (e.g. psychotic disorders), kappas ranged from 0.14 for affective disorders (including bipolar) to 0.70 for eating disorders (median = 0.43). Kappas were significantly higher for outpatients than inpatients and for children than adults. However, these effects were not significant in meta-regressions. Diagnostic agreement between SDIs and clinical evaluations varied widely by disorder and was low to moderate for most disorders. Thus, findings from SDIs may not fully apply to diagnoses based on clinical evaluations of the sort used in the published studies. Rather than implying that SDIs or clinical evaluations are inferior, characteristics of both may limit agreement and generalizability from SDI findings to clinical practice. (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                N Am J Med Sci
                N Am J Med Sci
                NAJMS
                North American Journal of Medical Sciences
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                2250-1541
                1947-2714
                July 2015
                : 7
                : 7
                : 299-305
                Affiliations
                [1] Evidence-Based Caring Research Center, Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
                [1 ] Department of Emergency Medicine, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Mr. Amir Mirhaghi, Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Chahrrah-e-Doktora, Daneshgah st., Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi, Iran. E-mail: mirhaghia@ 123456mums.ac.ir
                Article
                NAJMS-7-299
                10.4103/1947-2714.161243
                4525387
                26258076
                09632ffa-19e9-4dee-afc3-b87ec28b3c7e
                Copyright: © 2015 North American Journal of Medical Sciences

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                Categories
                Original Article

                Medicine
                algorithm,emergency treatment,meta-analysis,reliability and validity,triage
                Medicine
                algorithm, emergency treatment, meta-analysis, reliability and validity, triage

                Comments

                Comment on this article