Paul C Mullan1, Susan B Torrey2, Amit Chandra3, Ngaire Caruso3, Andrew Kestler4. 1. Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Botswana School of Medicine, Gaborone, Botswana. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia and St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improvements in triage have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in resource-limited settings. In 2009, the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department at the Princess Marina Hospital (PMH) in Botswana identified the need for a more objective triage system and adapted the South African Triage Scale to create the PMH A&E Triage Scale (PATS). AIM: The primary purpose was to compare the undertriage and overtriage rates in the PATS and pre-PATS study periods. METHODS: Data were collected from 5 April 2010 to 1 May 2011 for the PATS and compared with a database of patients triaged from 1 October 2009 to 24 March 2010 for the pre-PATS. Data included patient disposition outcomes, demographics and triage level assignments. RESULTS: 14 706 (pre-PATS) and 25 243 (PATS) patient visits were reviewed. Overall, overtriage rates improved from 53% (pre-PATS) to 38% (PATS) (p<0.001); likewise, undertriage rates improved from 47% (pre-PATS) to 16% (PATS) (p<0.001). Statistically significant decreases in both rates were found when paediatric and adult cases were analysed separately. PATS was more predictive of inpatient admission, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and death rates in the A&E than was the pre-PATS. The lowest acuity category of each system had a 0.6% (pre-PATS) and 0% (PATS) chance of death in the A&E or ICU admission (p<0.001). No change in death rate was seen between the pre-PATS and PATS, but ICU admission rates decreased from 0.35% to 0.06% (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PATS is a more predictive triage system than pre-PATS as evidenced by improved overtriage, undertriage and patient severity predictability across triage levels. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Improvements in triage have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in resource-limited settings. In 2009, the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department at the Princess Marina Hospital (PMH) in Botswana identified the need for a more objective triage system and adapted the South African Triage Scale to create the PMH A&E Triage Scale (PATS). AIM: The primary purpose was to compare the undertriage and overtriage rates in the PATS and pre-PATS study periods. METHODS: Data were collected from 5 April 2010 to 1 May 2011 for the PATS and compared with a database of patients triaged from 1 October 2009 to 24 March 2010 for the pre-PATS. Data included patient disposition outcomes, demographics and triage level assignments. RESULTS: 14 706 (pre-PATS) and 25 243 (PATS) patient visits were reviewed. Overall, overtriage rates improved from 53% (pre-PATS) to 38% (PATS) (p<0.001); likewise, undertriage rates improved from 47% (pre-PATS) to 16% (PATS) (p<0.001). Statistically significant decreases in both rates were found when paediatric and adult cases were analysed separately. PATS was more predictive of inpatient admission, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and death rates in the A&E than was the pre-PATS. The lowest acuity category of each system had a 0.6% (pre-PATS) and 0% (PATS) chance of death in the A&E or ICU admission (p<0.001). No change in death rate was seen between the pre-PATS and PATS, but ICU admission rates decreased from 0.35% to 0.06% (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PATS is a more predictive triage system than pre-PATS as evidenced by improved overtriage, undertriage and patient severity predictability across triage levels. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Adam R Aluisio; Stephanie Garbern; Tess Wiskel; Zeta A Mutabazi; Olivier Umuhire; Chin Chin Ch'ng; Kristina E Rudd; Jeanne D'Arc Nyinawankusi; Jean Claude Byiringiro; Adam C Levine Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Avital Yohann; Yonasi Chise; Chiphatso Manjolo; Laura N Purcell; Jared Gallaher; Anthony Charles Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Temmy Sunyoto; Rafael Van den Bergh; Pola Valles; Reinaldo Gutierrez; Latifa Ayada; Rony Zachariah; Abdi Yassin; Sven Gudmund Hinderaker; Anthony D Harries Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Christopher C Moore; Riley Hazard; Kacie J Saulters; John Ainsworth; Susan A Adakun; Abdallah Amir; Ben Andrews; Mary Auma; Tim Baker; Patrick Banura; John A Crump; Martin P Grobusch; Michaëla A M Huson; Shevin T Jacob; Olamide D Jarrett; John Kellett; Shabir Lakhi; Albert Majwala; Martin Opio; Matthew P Rubach; Jamie Rylance; W Michael Scheld; John Schieffelin; Richard Ssekitoleko; India Wheeler; Laura E Barnes Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2017-07-28
Authors: Rasha D Sawaya; Kristen A Breslin; Eiman Abdulrahman; Jennifer I Chapman; Dafina M Good; Lili Moran; Paul C Mullan; Oluwakemi Badaki-Makun Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2018-04-19
Authors: Michèle Twomey; Ana Šijački; Gert Krummrey; Tyson Welzel; Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Marko Ercegovac Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 3.390