Literature DB >> 28751363

Five-level emergency triage systems: variation in assessment of validity.

Akira Kuriyama1,2, Seigo Urushidani3, Takeo Nakayama1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Triage systems are scales developed to rate the degree of urgency among patients who arrive at EDs. A number of different scales are in use; however, the way in which they have been validated is inconsistent. Also, it is difficult to define a surrogate that accurately predicts urgency. This systematic review described reference standards and measures used in previous validation studies of five-level triage systems.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL to identify studies that had assessed the validity of five-level triage systems and described the reference standards and measures applied in these studies. Studies were divided into those using criterion validity (reference standards developed by expert panels or triage systems already in use) and those using construct validity (prognosis, costs and resource use).
RESULTS: A total of 57 studies examined criterion and construct validity of 14 five-level triage systems. Criterion validity was examined by evaluating (1) agreement between the assigned degree of urgency with objective standard criteria (12 studies), (2) overtriage and undertriage (9 studies) and (3) sensitivity and specificity of triage systems (7 studies). Construct validity was examined by looking at (4) the associations between the assigned degree of urgency and measures gauged in EDs (48 studies) and (5) the associations between the assigned degree of urgency and measures gauged after hospitalisation (13 studies). Particularly, among 46 validation studies of the most commonly used triages (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, Emergency Severity Index and Manchester Triage System), 13 and 39 studies examined criterion and construct validity, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Previous studies applied various reference standards and measures to validate five-level triage systems. They either created their own reference standard or used a combination of severity/resource measures. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  construct validity; criterion validity; emergency departments; measures; reference standards; severity; systematic review.; triage; triage systems; urgency; validity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28751363     DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2016-206295

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


  27 in total

1.  Development and validation of the Heidelberg Neurological Triage System (HEINTS).

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

2.  Initial acuity of firearm injuries in the United States: are civilian injuries similar to combat casualty statistics.

Authors:  Daniel Stephen Schwartz; Jonah Thompson; Tony Locrotondo; Spencer Heggers
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 3.397

3.  Migration Patterns from an Open Illicit Drug Scene and Emergency Department Visits among People Who Use Illicit Drugs in Vancouver, Canada.

Authors:  Saif-El-Din El-Akkad; Kanna Hayashi; Huiru Dong; Andrew Day; Rachael McKendry; Gaganpreet Kaur; Rolando Barrios; Kora Debeck; M-J Milloy; Lianping Ti
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Validation of a Modified Triage Scale in a Norwegian Pediatric Emergency Department.

Authors:  Mette Engan; Asle Hirth; Håvard Trønnes
Journal:  Int J Pediatr       Date:  2018-10-15

5.  Risk assessment models for potential use in the emergency department have lower predictive ability in older patients compared to the middle-aged for short-term mortality - a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Martin Schultz; Line Jee Hartmann Rasmussen; Nicolas Carlson; Rasmus Bo Hasselbalch; Birgitte Nybo Jensen; Lotte Usinger; Jesper Eugen-Olsen; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Simon Rasmussen; Kasper Karmark Iversen
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 3.921

6.  Over-triage occurs when considering the patient's pain in Korean Triage and Acuity Scale (KTAS).

Authors:  Ji Hwan Lee; Yoo Seok Park; In Cheol Park; Hak Soo Lee; Ji Hoon Kim; Joon Min Park; Sung Phil Chung; Min Joung Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Optimisation of telephone triage of callers with symptoms suggestive of acute cardiovascular disease in out-of-hours primary care: observational design of the Safety First study.

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

8.  Specific Management of Patients with Acute Abdomen during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Surgical Perspective from Germany.

Authors:  Florian Kühn; Matthias Klein; Henning Laven; Nikolaus Börner; Tobias Weinberger; Florian Streitparth; Jens Werner; Tobias S Schiergens
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2020-06-11

9.  Efficacy of prehospital National Early Warning Score to predict outpatient disposition at an emergency department of a Japanese tertiary hospital: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Takuro Endo; Toru Yoshida; Tomohiro Shinozaki; Takako Motohashi; Hsiang-Chin Hsu; Shunsuke Fukuda; Jumpei Tsukuda; Takaki Naito; Kenichiro Morisawa; Nobuhiko Shimozawa; Yasuhiko Taira; Shigeki Fujitani
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Pre-hospital triage performance and emergency medical services nurse's field assessment in an unselected patient population attended to by the emergency medical services: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Carl Magnusson; Johan Herlitz; Christer Axelsson
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.