Not So Fast: The Downsides of Rapid Test Ordering at Triage

Effect of a split-flow physician in triage model on abdominal CT ordering rate and yield

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the rate and clinical yield of computed tomography (CT) imaging between patients presenting with abdominal pain initially seen by a physician in triage (PIT) versus those seen only by physicians working in the main emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of all self-arrivals >18 years old presenting to a single ED with abdominal pain. Nine-hundred patients were randomly selected from both the PIT and traditional patient flow groups and rates and yields of CT imaging were compared, both alone and in a model controlling for potential confounders. Predetermined criteria for CT significance included need for admission, consult, or targeted medications.

RESULTS

The overall rate of CT imaging (unadjusted) did not differ between the PIT and traditional groups, 48.7% (95% CI 45.4-51.9) vs. 45.1% (95% CI 41.8-48.4), respectively (p = .13). The CT yield for patients seen in in the PIT group was also similar to that of the traditional group: 49.1% (95% CI 44.4-53.8) vs. 50.5% (95% CI 45.6-55.4) (p = .68). In the logistic regression model, when controlling for age, gender, ESI-acuity, race and insurance payor, PIT vs. traditional was not a predictor of CT ordering (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94-1.38).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with abdominal pain, we found no significant differences in rates of CT ordering or CT yield for patients seen in a PIT vs. traditional models, suggesting the increased efficiencies offered by PIT models do not come at the cost of increased or decreased imaging utilization.