Start Limitations in validating emergency department triage scales

Limitations in validating emergency department triage scales

The lack of treatment worsens their health and social conditions and increases treatment costs, as emergency department visits arise.

Interobserver reliability and accuracy were compared using Kappa and comparative statistics. Clinical Indicators “pain scale, chest pain, musculoskeletal injury, respiratory illness, and headache” captured 68% and 62% of visits. We have demonstrated a system to measure the levels of process accuracy and reliability for triage over time.

ABSTRACT: Background Co-occurring severe mental and substance use disorders are associated with physical, psychological and social complications such as homelessness and unemployment.

People with severe mental and substance use disorders are difficult to engage with care.

Therefore, our aim was to validate the implementation of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), currently applied by nurses, in a university hospital.

Materials and Methods: Patient information was collected in the Emergency Department and translated from real case scenarios into paper-based scenarios.

Adaptive process triage (ADAPT) was the most frequently used validated triage system (25% (n = 5)), while 40% (n = 8) used non-validated systems.

Triage was performed by nurses at 73% (n = 11) of the EDs using triage. ADAPT was the primary triage system in 25% of the EDs, while 40% used non-validated triage systems.

However, this impact seemed mainly related to the case management model.