Chen J, Aluisio AR, Tang OY, Nwakibu UA, Hunold KM, Wangara AA, Kiruja J, Maingi A, Mutiso V, Thompson P, Wachira B, Dunlop SJ, Martin IBK, Myers JG. Diagnostic Accuracy of the World Health Organization Pediatric Emergency Triage, Assessment and Treatment Tool Plus Among Patients Seeking Care in Nairobi, Kenya: A Cross-sectional Study.
Pediatr Emerg Care 2023:00006565-990000000-00360. [PMID:
38048556 DOI:
10.1097/pec.0000000000003093]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/06/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization developed Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment Plus (ETAT+) guidelines to facilitate pediatric care in resource-limited settings. ETAT+ triages patients as nonurgent, priority, or emergency cases, but there is limited research on the performance of ETAT+ regarding patient-oriented outcomes. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of ETAT+ in predicting the need for hospital admission in a pediatric emergency unit at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya.
METHODS
This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of pediatric emergency unit patients enrolled over a 4-week period using fixed random sampling. Diagnostic accuracy of ETAT+ was evaluated using receiver operating curves (ROCs) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with associated sensitivity and specificity (reference category: nonurgent). The ROC analysis was performed for the overall population and stratified by age group.
RESULTS
A total of 323 patients were studied. The most common reasons for presentation were upper respiratory tract disease (32.8%), gastrointestinal disease (15.5%), and lower respiratory tract disease (12.4%). Two hundred twelve participants were triaged as nonurgent (65.6%), 60 as priority (18.6%), and 51 as emergency (15.8%). In the overall study population, the area under the ROC curve was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.99). The ETAT+ sensitivity was 93.8% (95% CI, 87.0%-99.0%), and the specificity was 82.0% (95% CI, 77.0%-87.0%) for admission of priority group patients. The sensitivity and specificity for the emergency patients were 66.0% (95% CI, 55.0%-77.0%) and 98.0% (95% CI, 97.0%-100.0%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
ETAT+ demonstrated diagnostic accuracy for predicting patient need for hospital admission. This finding supports the utility of ETAT+ to inform emergency care practice. Further research on ETAT+ performance in larger populations and additional patient-oriented outcomes would enhance its generalizability and application in resource-limited settings.
Collapse