Literature DB >> 19625548

Observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System and the Emergency Severity Index: a simulation study.

M N Storm-Versloot1, D T Ubbink, V Chin a Choi, J S K Luitse.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI).
METHODS: 50 representative emergency department (ED) scenarios derived from actual cases were presented to 18 ED nurses from three different hospitals. Eight of them were familiar with MTS, six with ESI and four were not familiar but trained in both systems. They independently assigned triage scores to each scenario according to the triage system(s) they were familiar with. After 4-6 weeks the same nurses again judged the scenarios in a different order. Unanimity in judgement and unweighted and quadratic-weighted kappas were calculated.
RESULTS: Unanimity in judgement for MTS was 90% and for ESI 73%. One-level disagreement was found in 8% and 23% of the cases, respectively. Interobserver unweighted kappas were 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.83) for MTS and 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.55) for ESI. Quadratic-weighted kappas were 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.83), respectively. At 4-6 weeks, one-level intra-observer disagreements were 10% and 22% and 2-level disagreement 1% and 2%, respectively. Intra-observer unweighted kappas were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94) for MTS and 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) for ESI.
CONCLUSION: Using paper-based clinical scenarios, MTS was found to have a greater inter and intra-observer agreement than ESI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19625548     DOI: 10.1136/emj.2008.059378

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med J        ISSN: 1472-0205            Impact factor:   2.740


  16 in total

Review 1.  [Triage systems in the emergency department].

Authors:  P Weyrich; M Christ; N Celebi; R Riessen
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 0.840

2.  Inter-rater Reliability of Triages Performed by the Electronic Triage System.

Authors:  Faramarz Pourasghar; Amin Daemi; Jafar Sadegh Tabrizi; Alireza Ala
Journal:  Bull Emerg Trauma       Date:  2015-10

3.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): No system should be preferred.

Authors:  Christoph Wasser
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Reliability of the Emergency Severity Index: Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amir Mirhaghi; Abbas Heydari; Reza Mazlom; Farzaneh Hasanzadeh
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2015-01-21

5.  Effect of a triage course on quality of rating triage codes in a group of university nursing students:a before-after observational study.

Authors:  Nicola Parenti; Maria Letizia Bacchi Reggiani; Diego Sangiorgi; Vito Serventi; Leopoldo Sarli
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2013

6.  Identifying disparity in emergency department length of stay and admission likelihood.

Authors:  Sean Wilson; Sharmistha Dev; Meredith Mahan; Manu Malhotra; Joseph Miller
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2016

7.  Outcomes for emergency severity index triage implementation in the emergency department.

Authors:  Amir Mirhaghi; Hadi Kooshiar; Habibollah Esmaeili; Mohsen Ebrahimi
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-04-01

Review 8.  Reliability and validity of triage systems in paediatric emergency care.

Authors:  Mirjam van Veen; Henriette A Moll
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Inter-Rater Agreement of Emergency Nurses and Physicians in Emergency Severity Index (ESI) Triage.

Authors:  Mehrdad Esmailian; Majid Zamani; Fatemeh Azadi; Faezeh Ghasemi
Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)       Date:  2014

10.  The German Version of the Manchester Triage System and its quality criteria--first assessment of validity and reliability.

Authors:  Ingo Gräff; Bernd Goldschmidt; Procula Glien; Manuela Bogdanow; Rolf Fimmers; Andreas Hoeft; Se-Chan Kim; Daniel Grigutsch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.