Binoy Mistry1, Sarah Stewart De Ramirez1, Gabor Kelen1, Paulo S K Schmitz2, Kamna S Balhara3, Scott Levin1, Diego Martinez1, Kevin Psoter4, Xavier Anton5, Jeremiah S Hinson6. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Emergency Department, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 5. Emergency Department, Al-Rahba Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: jhinson4@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess accuracy and variability of triage score assignment by emergency department (ED) nurses using the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) in 3 countries. In accordance with previous reports and clinical observation, we hypothesize low accuracy and high variability across all sites. METHODS: This cross-sectional multicenter study enrolled 87 ESI-trained nurses from EDs in Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Standardized triage scenarios published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) were used. Accuracy was defined by concordance with the AHRQ key and calculated as percentages. Accuracy comparisons were made with one-way ANOVA and paired t test. Interrater reliability was measured with Krippendorff's α. Subanalyses based on nursing experience and triage scenario type were also performed. RESULTS: Mean accuracy pooled across all sites and scenarios was 59.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.4% to 62.0%) and interrater reliability was modest (α=.730; 95% CI .692 to .767). There was no difference in overall accuracy between sites or according to nurse experience. Medium-acuity scenarios were scored with greater accuracy (76.4%; 95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%) than high- or low-acuity cases (44.1%, 95% CI 39.3% to 49.0% and 54%, 95% CI 49.9% to 58.2%), and adult scenarios were scored with greater accuracy than pediatric ones (66.2%, 95% CI 62.9% to 69.7% versus 46.9%, 95% CI 43.4% to 50.3%). CONCLUSION: In this multinational study, concordance of nurse-assigned ESI score with reference standard was universally poor and variability was high. Although the ESI is the most popular ED triage tool in the United States and is increasingly used worldwide, our findings point to a need for more reliable ED triage tools.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess accuracy and variability of triage score assignment by emergency department (ED) nurses using the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) in 3 countries. In accordance with previous reports and clinical observation, we hypothesize low accuracy and high variability across all sites. METHODS: This cross-sectional multicenter study enrolled 87 ESI-trained nurses from EDs in Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Standardized triage scenarios published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) were used. Accuracy was defined by concordance with the AHRQ key and calculated as percentages. Accuracy comparisons were made with one-way ANOVA and paired t test. Interrater reliability was measured with Krippendorff's α. Subanalyses based on nursing experience and triage scenario type were also performed. RESULTS: Mean accuracy pooled across all sites and scenarios was 59.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.4% to 62.0%) and interrater reliability was modest (α=.730; 95% CI .692 to .767). There was no difference in overall accuracy between sites or according to nurse experience. Medium-acuity scenarios were scored with greater accuracy (76.4%; 95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%) than high- or low-acuity cases (44.1%, 95% CI 39.3% to 49.0% and 54%, 95% CI 49.9% to 58.2%), and adult scenarios were scored with greater accuracy than pediatric ones (66.2%, 95% CI 62.9% to 69.7% versus 46.9%, 95% CI 43.4% to 50.3%). CONCLUSION: In this multinational study, concordance of nurse-assigned ESI score with reference standard was universally poor and variability was high. Although the ESI is the most popular ED triage tool in the United States and is increasingly used worldwide, our findings point to a need for more reliable ED triage tools.
Authors: Yousif AlSerkal; Kalthoom AlBlooshi; Sumaya AlBlooshi; Yasir Khan; Sadaf A Naqvi; Colin Fincham; Noor AlMehiri Journal: Open Access Emerg Med Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: Joshua W Joseph; Evan L Leventhal; Anne V Grossestreuer; Matthew L Wong; Loren J Joseph; Larry A Nathanson; Michael W Donnino; Noémie Elhadad; Leon D Sanchez Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2020-09-01
Authors: Ernest E Wang; Yue Yin; Itai Gurvich; Morris S Kharasch; Clifford Rice; Jared Novack; Christine Babcock; James Ahn; Steven H Bowman; Jan A Van Mieghem Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Meng-Han Tsai; Sudha Xirasagar; Scott Carroll; Charles S Bryan; Pamela J Gallagher; Kim Davis; Edward C Jauch Journal: Inquiry Date: 2018 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: S Fatima Faqar-Uz-Zaman; Natalie Filmann; Dora Mahkovic; Michael von Wagner; Charlotte Detemble; Ulf Kippke; Ursula Marschall; Luxia Anantharajah; Philipp Baumartz; Paula Sobotta; Wolf O Bechstein; Andreas A Schnitzbauer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nee-Kofi Mould-Millman; Julia M Dixon; Taylor Burkholder; Jennifer L Pigoga; Michael Lee; Shaheem de Vries; Kubendhren Moodley; Maxene Meier; Kathryn Colborn; Chandni Patel; Lee A Wallis Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2021-01-15
Authors: Andreas Follmann; Marian Ohligs; Nadine Hochhausen; Stefan K Beckers; Rolf Rossaint; Michael Czaplik Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.428