BACKGROUND: Accurate initial patient triage in the emergency department (ED) is pivotal in reducing time to effective treatment by the medical team and in expediting patient flow. The Manchester Triage System (MTS) is widely implemented for this purpose. Yet the overall effectiveness of its performance remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the ability of MTS to accurately assess high treatment priority and to predict adverse clinical outcomes in a large unselected population of medical ED patients. METHODS: We prospectively followed consecutive medical patients seeking ED care for 30 days. Triage nurses implemented MTS upon arrival of patients admitted to the ED. The primary endpoint was high initial treatment priority adjudicated by two independent physicians. Secondary endpoints were 30-day all-cause mortality, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and length of stay. We used regression models with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as a measure of discrimination. RESULTS: Of the 2407 patients, 524 (21.8%) included patients (60.5 years, 55.7% males) who were classified as high treatment priority; 3.9% (n = 93) were transferred to the ICU; and 5.7% (n = 136) died. The initial MTS showed fair prognostic accuracy in predicting treatment priority (AUC 0.71) and ICU admission (AUC 0.68), but not in predicting mortality (AUC 0.55). Results were robust across most predefined subgroups, including patients diagnosed with infections, or cardiovascular or gastrointestinal diseases. In the subgroup of neurological symptoms and disorders, the MTS showed the best performance. CONCLUSION: The MTS showed fair performance in predicting high treatment priority and adverse clinical outcomes across different medical ED patient populations. Future research should focus on further refinement of the MTS so that its performance can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01768494.
BACKGROUND: Accurate initial patient triage in the emergency department (ED) is pivotal in reducing time to effective treatment by the medical team and in expediting patient flow. The Manchester Triage System (MTS) is widely implemented for this purpose. Yet the overall effectiveness of its performance remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the ability of MTS to accurately assess high treatment priority and to predict adverse clinical outcomes in a large unselected population of medical ED patients. METHODS: We prospectively followed consecutive medical patients seeking ED care for 30 days. Triage nurses implemented MTS upon arrival of patients admitted to the ED. The primary endpoint was high initial treatment priority adjudicated by two independent physicians. Secondary endpoints were 30-day all-cause mortality, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and length of stay. We used regression models with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as a measure of discrimination. RESULTS: Of the 2407 patients, 524 (21.8%) included patients (60.5 years, 55.7% males) who were classified as high treatment priority; 3.9% (n = 93) were transferred to the ICU; and 5.7% (n = 136) died. The initial MTS showed fair prognostic accuracy in predicting treatment priority (AUC 0.71) and ICU admission (AUC 0.68), but not in predicting mortality (AUC 0.55). Results were robust across most predefined subgroups, including patients diagnosed with infections, or cardiovascular or gastrointestinal diseases. In the subgroup of neurological symptoms and disorders, the MTS showed the best performance. CONCLUSION: The MTS showed fair performance in predicting high treatment priority and adverse clinical outcomes across different medical ED patient populations. Future research should focus on further refinement of the MTS so that its performance can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01768494.
Authors: Hanna M Oßwald; Linda Harenberg; Hannah Jaschonek; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Jan C Purrucker; Geraldine Rauch; Peter A Ringleb; Simon Nagel Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Alexander Kutz; Jonas Florin; Pierre Hausfater; Devendra Amin; Adina Amin; Sebastian Haubitz; Antoinette Conca; Barbara Reutlinger; Pauline Canavaggio; Gabrielle Sauvin; Maguy Bernard; Andreas Huber; Beat Mueller; Philipp Schuetz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Steffie H A Brouns; Lisette Mignot-Evers; Floor Derkx; Suze L Lambooij; Jeanne P Dieleman; Harm R Haak Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-07
Authors: Anna Slagman; Felix Greiner; Julia Searle; Linton Harriss; Fintan Thompson; Johann Frick; Myrto Bolanaki; Tobias Lindner; Martin Möckel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: James Malycha; Timothy Bonnici; David A Clifton; Guy Ludbrook; J Duncan Young; Peter J Watkinson Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Daphne Ca Erkelens; Loes Tcm Wouters; Dorien Lm Zwart; Roger Amj Damoiseaux; Esther De Groot; Arno W Hoes; Frans H Rutten Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Laura C Blomaard; Corianne Speksnijder; Jacinta A Lucke; Jelle de Gelder; Sander Anten; Stephanie C E Schuit; Ewout W Steyerberg; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Bas de Groot; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-04-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Patrick D Dißmann; Maxime Maignan; Paul D Cloves; Blanca Gutierrez Parres; Sara Dickerson; Alice Eberhardt Journal: Pain Ther Date: 2018-06-02