ONUR POLAT
(Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara, Turkey)
Ayça KOCA TANRIVERDİ
(Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Yenimahalle Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Emergency Medicine, Ankara, Turkey)
Müge GÜNALP ENEYLİ
(Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara, Turkey)
Serdar GÜRLER
(Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara, Turkey)
SİNAN GENÇ
(Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara, Turkey)
AHMET BURAK OĞUZ
(Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara, Turkey)
AHMET BURAK OĞUZ
(Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara, Turkey)
Yıl: 2018Cilt: 71Sayı: 2ISSN: 0365-8104 / 1307-5608Sayfa Aralığı: 152 - 157İngilizce

105 3
Emergency Department Triage Decisions: Personnel and Parameters
Objectives: Triage aims to determine the clinical priority of patients based on their presenting features. Scoring systems-including physiological parameters-to predict mortality have been described, but in most triage methods used in emergency departments, vital signs or laboratory parameters are not included as standard assessments. The objective of this study was to measure agreement and acuity on the urgency of an emergency department patient between the points of views of healthcare professionals. We also sought to determine which vital signs and parameters affect triage decision by creating several mods with different parameters. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was carried out on 550 patients referred to an academic emergency department. The patients triage levels were determined by nurses, intern doctors, residents and emergency physicians. Eleven mods were defined with several components, for each mod 50 patients were selected. To evaluate the agreement between raters triage decisions, the chance-adjusted measure of agreement kappa was calculated. Results: Of the 550 patients included in the study, agreement for nurses was 0.374, kappa value between interns and physician was 0.257, and a value of 0.311 was found for residents. Conclusion: In emergency medicine, there is a strong need for sensitive tools to identify and characterize patients at admission to the emergency department. According to our results, the most important parameters affecting triage decision were found to be oxygen saturation and Glasgow Coma scale.
Fen > Tıp > Cerrahi
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • Moll HA. Challenges in the validation of triage systems at emergency departments. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:384-388.
  • Travers DA, Wller AE, Bowling JM, et al. Five-level triage system more effective than three-level in tertiary emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 2002;28:395-400.
  • Erimşah ME, Yaka E, Yilmaz S, et al. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the Ministry of Health of Turkey’s mandatory emergency triage instrument. Emerg Med Australas 2015;27:210-215.
  • Alquraini M, Awad E, Hijazi R. Reliability of Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in Saudi Arabia. Int J Emerg Med 2015;8:80.
  • Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Flaherty HL, et al. Effect of vital signs on triage decisions. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39:223-232.
  • Durand AC, Gentile S, Gerbeaux P, et al. Be careful with triage in emergency departments: interobserver agreement on 1,578 patients in France. BMC Emerg Med 2011;11:19.
  • McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22:276-282.
  • Garbez R, Carrieri-Kohlman V, Stotts N, et al. Factors influencing patient assignment to level 2 and level 3 within the 5-level ESI triage system. J Emerg Nurs 2011;37:526-532.
  • Baumann MR, Strout TD. Evaluation of the Emergency Severity Index (version 3) triage algorithm in pediatric patients. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:219-224.
  • Olsson T, Terent A, Lind L. Rapid Emergency Medicine score: a new prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients. J Intern Med 2004;255:579-587.
  • Widgren BR, Jourak M. Medical Emergency Triage and Treatment System (METTS): a new protocol in primary triage and secondary priority decision in emergency medicine. J Emerg Med 2011;40:623-628.
  • Brillman JC, Doezema D, Tandberg D, et al. Triage: limitations in predicting need for emergent care and hospital admission. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:493-500.
  • Caterino JM, Holliman CJ, Kunselman AR. Underestimation of case severity by emergency department patients: implications for managed care. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:254-256.
  • Farrohknia N, Castrén M, Ehrenberg A, et al. Emergency department triage scales and their components: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2011;19:42.
  • Read S, George S, Westlake L, et al. Piloting an evaluation of triage. Int J Nurs Stud 1992;29:275-288.
  • Gerdtz MF, Bucknall TK. Triage nurses’ clinical decision making. An observational study of urgency assessment. J Adv Nurs 2001;35:550-561.
  • Goodacre S, Turner J, Nicholl J. Prediction of mortality among emergency medical admissions. Emerg Med J 2006;23:372-375.
  • George S, Read S, Westlake L, et al. Differences in priorities assigned to patients by triage nurses and by consultant physicians in accident and emergency departments. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993;47:312-315.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.