Using data to discover new patterns: a triage quality indicator

Triage in the emergency department - a qualitative study of the factors which nurses consider when making decisions

Triage, as a concept, is relatively new in Sweden and means 'sorting'. The triage process was developed to grade patients who needed immediate care. Triage is currently important for the emergency treatment system, and nurses are expected to work with it professionally. The aim of this study is to describe how nurses implement triage when patients arrive at the emergency department of a county hospital, situated in a rural area of Sweden, as well as to highlight the factors considered when prioritizing, in connection with nurses' decision-making. The method used was observations of 19 nurses, with minimal disturbance in their triage work, followed by a short tape-recorded interview, during which the nurses were asked to reflect upon their decision of priorities. Qualitative content analysis of data has been used. The results were divided into two areas, internal factors and external factors. The internal factors reflect the nurse skills and personal capacity. The external factors reflect work environment, including high workload and practical arrangements, and should always be perceived and taken into consideration. Using these factors as a basis, the patients' clinical condition, clinical history, various examinations and tests form an assessment, which subsequently results in a prioritization.

Five-level triage system more effective than three-level in tertiary emergency department

INTRODUCTION

The study objectives were to compare reliability and validity of a 3-level (3L) triage system with a new 5-level (5L) triage system and determine the effect of nursing experience on triage reliability.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a southeastern tertiary emergency department. With a stratified random sample, reliability of 3L triage ratings was measured with weighted kappa (time 1). The 5L system was then implemented, and weighted kappa was remeasured (time 2). Validity was assessed by comparing case mix, sensitivity, and specificity at times 1 and 2, and comparing 5L ratings with physician billing (Evaluation and Management) codes and nursing resource intensity at time 2.

RESULTS

Time 1 case mix (15,324 patients) was: level 1, 6%; level 2, 36%; level 3, 59%, and time 2 (16,024 patients) was: level 1, 1%; level 2, 8%; level 3, 38%; level 4, 41%; level 5, 13%. Three hundred-five triage ratings were evaluated from time 1, and 303 were evaluated from time 2. Weighted kappa was 0.53 for time 1 and 0.68 for time 2. Spearman correlations were: 5L and nursing resource intensity, 0.55 (P <.0001); and 5L and Em, 0.57 (P <.0001). Sensitivity was 58% for the 3L and 68% for the 5L. Specificity was 83% for the 3L and 91% for the 5L. Under-triage rates were 28% for the 3L and 12% for the 5L, and less-experienced nurses were more likely to under-triage using the 3L system.

DISCUSSION

The 5L triage system is safer and provides greater discrimination, better reliability, and improved sensitivity and specificity than the 3L triage system.