89
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-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

          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).

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Rapid Emergency Medicine score: a new prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients.

          To evaluate the predictive accuracy of the scoring system Rapid Acute Physiology score (RAPS) in nonsurgical patients attending the emergency department (ED) regarding in-hospital mortality and length of stay in hospital (LOS), and to investigate whether the predictive ability of RAPS could be improved by extending the system. Prospective cohort study. An adult ED of a 1200-bed university hospital. A total of 12 006 nonsurgical patients presenting to the ED during 12 consecutive months. For all entries to the ED, RAPS (including blood pressure, respiratory rate, pulse rate and Glasgow coma scale) was calculated. The RAPS system was extended by including the peripheral oxygen saturation and patient age (Rapid Emergency Medicine score, REMS) and this new score was calculated for each patient. The statistical associations between the two scoring systems and in-hospital mortality as well as LOS in hospital were examined. The REMS was superior to RAPS in predicting in-hospital mortality [area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.852 +/- 0.014 SEM for REMS compared with 0.652 +/- 0.019 for RAPS, P < 0.05]. An increase of 1-point in the 26-point REMS scale was associated with an OR of 1.40 for in-hospital death (95% CI: 1.36-1.45, P < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained in the major patient groups (chest pain, stroke, coma, dyspnoea and diabetes), in all age groups and in both sexes. The association between REMS and LOS was modest (r = 0.47, P = 0.0001). The REMS was a powerful predictor of in-hospital mortality in patients attending the ED over a wide range of common nonsurgical disorders.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The emergency severity index triage algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid.

            Initial studies have shown improved reliability and validity of a new triage tool, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), over conventional three-level scales at two university medical centers. After pilot implementation and validation, the ESI was revised to include pediatric and updated vital signs criteria. The goal of this study was to assess ESI version (v.) 2 reliability and validity at seven emergency departments (EDs) in three states. In part 1, interrater reliability was assessed using weighted kappa analysis of written training cases and postimplementation by a random sampling of actual patient triages. In part 2, validity was analyzed using a prospective cohort with stratified random sampling at each site. The ESI was compared with outcomes including resource consumption, inpatient admission, ED length of stay, and 60-day all-cause mortality. Weighted kappa analysis of interrater reliability ranged from 0.70 to 0.80 for the written scenarios (n = 3289) and 0.69 to 0.87 for patient triages (n = 386). Outcomes for the validity cohort (n = 1042) included hospitalization rates by ESI triage level: level 1, 83%; 2, 67%; 3, 42%; 4, 8%; level 5, 4%. Sixty-day all-cause mortality by triage level was as follows: level 1, 25%; 2, 4%; 3, 2%; 4, 1%; and 5, 0%. ESI v. 2 triage produced reliable, valid stratification of patients across seven sites. ESI triage should be evaluated as an ED casemix identification system for uniform data collection in the United States and compared with other major ED triage methods.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Cape Triage Score: a new triage system South Africa. Proposal from the Cape Triage Group.

              The Cape Triage Group (CTG) convened with the intention of producing a triage system for the Western Cape, and eventually South Africa. The group includes in-hospital and prehospital staff from varied backgrounds. The CTG triage protocol is termed the Cape Triage Score (CTG), and has been developed by a multi-disciplinary panel, through best available evidence and expert opinion. The CTS has been validated in several studies, and was launched across the Western Cape on 1 January 2006. The CTG would value feedback from readers of this journal, as part of the ongoing monitoring and evaluation process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
                Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
                BioMed Central
                1757-7241
                2011
                30 June 2011
                : 19
                : 42
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Swedish Council for Health Technology Assessment and Dep of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                [2 ]Dept of Clinical Science and Education and Section of Emergency Medicine, Södersjukhuset (Stockholm South General Hospital) Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ]School of Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden
                [4 ]Dept of Medicine, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                [5 ]Dept of Emergency Medicine, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden
                [6 ]Dept of Orthopedics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                [7 ]Dept of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden
                [8 ]Dept of Emergency Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden
                [9 ]Dept of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
                Article
                1757-7241-19-42
                10.1186/1757-7241-19-42
                3150303
                21718476
                e207743c-de4a-43a8-af04-cd9a30b3d63b
                Copyright ©2011 Farrohknia et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 April 2011
                : 30 June 2011
                Categories
                Review

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article