OBJECTIVES: To examine the consistency of triage outcomes by nurses using four types of computerised decision support software in NHS Direct. METHODS: 119 scenarios were constructed based on calls to ambulance services that had been assigned the lowest priority category by the emergency medical dispatch systems in use. These scenarios were presented to nurses working in four NHS Direct call centres using different computerised decision support software, including the NHS Clinical Assessment System. RESULTS: The overall level of agreement between the nurses using the four systems was "fair" rather than "moderate" or "good" (kappa=0.375, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.41). For example, the proportion of calls triaged to accident and emergency departments varied from 22% (26 of 119) to 44% (53 of 119). Between 21% (25 of 119) and 31% (37 of 119) of these low priority ambulance calls were triaged back to the 999 ambulance service. No system had both high sensitivity and specificity for referral to accident and emergency services. CONCLUSIONS: There were large differences in outcome between nurses using different software systems to triage the same calls. If the variation is primarily attributable to the software then standardising on a single system will obviously eliminate this. As the calls were originally made to ambulance services and given the lowest priority, this study also suggests that if, in the future, ambulance services pass such calls to NHS Direct then at least a fifth of these may be passed back unless greater sensitivity in the selection of calls can be achieved.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the consistency of triage outcomes by nurses using four types of computerised decision support software in NHS Direct. METHODS: 119 scenarios were constructed based on calls to ambulance services that had been assigned the lowest priority category by the emergency medical dispatch systems in use. These scenarios were presented to nurses working in four NHS Direct call centres using different computerised decision support software, including the NHS Clinical Assessment System. RESULTS: The overall level of agreement between the nurses using the four systems was "fair" rather than "moderate" or "good" (kappa=0.375, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.41). For example, the proportion of calls triaged to accident and emergency departments varied from 22% (26 of 119) to 44% (53 of 119). Between 21% (25 of 119) and 31% (37 of 119) of these low priority ambulance calls were triaged back to the 999 ambulance service. No system had both high sensitivity and specificity for referral to accident and emergency services. CONCLUSIONS: There were large differences in outcome between nurses using different software systems to triage the same calls. If the variation is primarily attributable to the software then standardising on a single system will obviously eliminate this. As the calls were originally made to ambulance services and given the lowest priority, this study also suggests that if, in the future, ambulance services pass such calls to NHS Direct then at least a fifth of these may be passed back unless greater sensitivity in the selection of calls can be achieved.
Authors: A Khorram-Manesh; K Lennquist Montán; A Hedelin; M Kihlgren; P Örtenwall Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Terri Patricia McVeigh; Deirdre Donnelly; Maryam Al Shehhi; Elizabeth A Jones; Alexandra Murray; Sarah Wedderburn; Mary Porteous; Sally Ann Lynch Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Eric Peter Moll van Charante; Gerben ter Riet; Sara Drost; Loes van der Linden; Niek S Klazinga; Patrick J E Bindels Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2006-12-12 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Anna Varley; Fiona C Warren; Suzanne H Richards; Raff Calitri; Katherine Chaplin; Emily Fletcher; Tim A Holt; Valerie Lattimer; Jamie Murdoch; David A Richards; John Campbell Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Philippa Rees; Adrian Edwards; Colin Powell; Peter Hibbert; Huw Williams; Meredith Makeham; Ben Carter; Donna Luff; Gareth Parry; Anthony Avery; Aziz Sheikh; Liam Donaldson; Andrew Carson-Stevens Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Helen Snooks; Julie Peconi; James Munro; Wai-Yee Cheung; Jaynie Rance; Anne Williams Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 2.655