OBJECTIVES: The sensitivity and specificity of consensus triage criteria for identifying which apparently inebriated patients could be triaged to care in a sobering centre were determined. Sensitivity and specificity for modifications to these criteria were also investigated. METHODS: Paramedics prospectively collected data on apparently inebriated persons en route to the emergency department (ED). 99 of these patients' ED charts were retrospectively reviewed to assess who actually required ED care. RESULTS: Of 99 subjects with both paramedic and ED chart data available, most were male (89%), homeless (57%) and found on the street (81%). Five were admitted and 13 others appeared to require ED care. Per consensus criteria, only 40 were eligible for triage to a sobering centre, but among those were five who appeared to require ED care (sensitivity 72%, 95% CI 47% to 90%; specificity 43%, 95% CI 32% to 55%). Paramedic opinion alone was specific (80%) but not very sensitive (39%). Lowering the pulse exclusion threshold from 130 to 83 would increase sensitivity to 100%, but decrease specificity to 22%. A simple post hoc rule excluding those with age >55 or pulse >83 from non-ED care had high sensitivity (94%) and fair specificity (61%). The consensus criteria's sensitivity and specificity varied (65-83% and 44-49%, respectively) depending on which ED services were considered optional (eg, psychiatric consultation, ECG, intravenous fluids, etc.). CONCLUSION: Most apparently inebriated individuals in this study did not require ED care, but prospective identification of these persons is difficult. A low exclusion cut-off for tachycardia may improve sensitivity.
OBJECTIVES: The sensitivity and specificity of consensus triage criteria for identifying which apparently inebriated patients could be triaged to care in a sobering centre were determined. Sensitivity and specificity for modifications to these criteria were also investigated. METHODS: Paramedics prospectively collected data on apparently inebriated persons en route to the emergency department (ED). 99 of these patients' ED charts were retrospectively reviewed to assess who actually required ED care. RESULTS: Of 99 subjects with both paramedic and ED chart data available, most were male (89%), homeless (57%) and found on the street (81%). Five were admitted and 13 others appeared to require ED care. Per consensus criteria, only 40 were eligible for triage to a sobering centre, but among those were five who appeared to require ED care (sensitivity 72%, 95% CI 47% to 90%; specificity 43%, 95% CI 32% to 55%). Paramedic opinion alone was specific (80%) but not very sensitive (39%). Lowering the pulse exclusion threshold from 130 to 83 would increase sensitivity to 100%, but decrease specificity to 22%. A simple post hoc rule excluding those with age >55 or pulse >83 from non-ED care had high sensitivity (94%) and fair specificity (61%). The consensus criteria's sensitivity and specificity varied (65-83% and 44-49%, respectively) depending on which ED services were considered optional (eg, psychiatric consultation, ECG, intravenous fluids, etc.). CONCLUSION: Most apparently inebriated individuals in this study did not require ED care, but prospective identification of these persons is difficult. A low exclusion cut-off for tachycardia may improve sensitivity.
Authors: Salvatore Silvestri; Steven G Rothrock; Dan Kennedy; Jay Ladde; Marsha Bryant; Joseph Pagane Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2002 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 3.077