Literature DB >> 21514968

Mandatory triage does not identify high-acuity patients within recommended time frames.

Ellen J Weber1, Ian McAlpine, Barbara Grimes.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: We determine whether mandatory formal triage of walk-in emergency department (ED) patients provides timely recognition of the most acutely ill.
METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a US urban academic ED, annual census 39,000, which uses Emergency Severity Index-5 triage (ESI-5) for all arriving patients. ESI-5 recommends that level 1 and 2 patients be treated by a physician immediately or within 10 minutes, respectively. For all high-acuity (ESI 1 or 2) patients presenting between January 1 and December 31, 2008, data from electronic medical records and registration and tracking systems were used to determine elapsed time from arrival to completion of triage (median, range, 95th percentile), proportion of these intervals that met ESI-5 recommendations, and whether triage throughput differed during peak arrival hours.
RESULTS: For 3,932 high-acuity walk-in visits (ESI 1=63; ESI 2=3,869), median time from arrival to triage completion was 12.3 minutes, range 0 to 128 minutes. Twenty-seven percent (95% confidence interval [CI] 26% to 29%) of high-acuity patients were taken to rooms on arrival; 41% (95% CI 40%, 43%), including those roomed immediately, completed triage within 10 minutes. Twenty-five percent (95% CI 24% to 26%) completed triage in greater than 20 minutes and 10% (95% CI 9% to 11%) greater than 30 minutes after arrival. Between 10 am and 10 pm (peak arrival hours), triage took longer for level 2 patients, and fewer met ESI recommendations.
CONCLUSION: Less than half of high-acuity patients in this urban ED completed triage within time frames recommended by the ESI-5, resulting in potentially unsafe delays. Although mandatory formal triage theoretically identifies patients who should be treated most quickly, the value and safety of this process should be reassessed.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21514968     DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  6 in total

1.  Waiting for triage: unmeasured time in patient flow.

Authors:  Christopher Houston; Leon D Sanchez; Christopher Fischer; Kathryn Volz; Richard Wolfe
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2014-12-08

2.  A study of the effect of introduction of JTAS in the emergency room.

Authors:  Toru Koyama; Takeshi Kashima; Motoyoshi Yamamoto; Kenjiro Ouchi; Takayuki Kotoku; Yuta Mizuno
Journal:  Acute Med Surg       Date:  2017-03-13

3.  Physicians' Disease Severity Ratings are Non-Inferior to the Emergency Severity Index.

Authors:  Roland Bingisser; Severin Manuel Baerlocher; Tobias Kuster; Ricardo Nieves Ortega; Christian H Nickel
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 4.241

4.  NO WAIT: new organised well-adapted immediate triage: a lean improvement project.

Authors:  Ahmed Elkholi; Huda Althobiti; Jamal Al Nofeye; Mohamed Hasan; Ahmed Ibrahim
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2021-01

5.  Decreasing triage time: effects of implementing a step-wise ESI algorithm in an EHR.

Authors:  Stephen Villa; Ellen J Weber; Steven Polevoi; Christopher Fee; Andrew Maruoka; Tina Quon
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 2.038

6.  Improving the wait time to triage at the emergency department.

Authors:  Shen Yuzeng; Lee Lin Hui
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2020-02
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.