| Literature DB >> 31826170 |
Emilia Aparecida Cicolo1, Heloísa Helena Ciqueto Peres2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the degree of reliability, accuracy and timing to perform the Manchester Triage System in electronic and manual records.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31826170 PMCID: PMC6896810 DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.3170.3241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem ISSN: 0104-1169
Sample characterization. Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil, 2018
| Variable | n |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Female | 9 |
| Male | 1 |
| Highest degree | |
| Specialization | 5 |
| Master | 5 |
| Current unit | |
| Triage | 3 |
| Adult emergency room | 3 |
| Children’s emergency room | 2 |
| Outpatient unit | 1 |
| Surgery room | 1 |
| Previous unit | |
| Adult emergency room | 3 |
| None | 2 |
| Triage | 1 |
| Medical unit | 1 |
| Transport | 1 |
| Training and quality service | 1 |
| Hygiene | 1 |
| Year of classifier course | |
| 2012 | 4 |
| 2013 | 1 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2015 | 2 |
| 2016 | 1 |
| Does not know | 1 |
| Triage registration type | |
| Electronic | 7 |
| Manual | 3 |
| Use of computer | |
| Work | 7 |
| Study | 5 |
| Leisure | 1 |
| Informatics competence | |
| Basic | 1 |
| Informational | 8 |
| Information management | 1 |
There are more than 1 answers per participant
Distribution of inter-rater reliability according to the variables in phases 1 and 2 of the study. Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil, 2018
| Variable | Phases of the Study | Kappa value |
|---|---|---|
| Discriminator | 1 | 0.633 |
| 2 | 0.788 | |
| Flowchart | 1 | 0.580 |
| 2 | 0.423 | |
| Priority | 1 | 0.703 |
| 2 | 0.454 | |
| Vital signs | 1 | 0.239 |
| 2 | 0.675 |
Accuracy distribution according to the variables in phases 1 and 2 of the study. Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil, 2018
| Attributes | Accuracy | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | |||
| Flowchart | Correct | 30 | 75.0 | 27 | 67.5 | 0.4586 |
| Incorrect | 10 | 25.0 | 13 | 32.5 | ||
| Discriminator | Correct | 20 | 50.0 | 21 | 52.5 | 0.8230 |
| Incorrect | 20 | 50.0 | 19 | 47.5 | ||
| Vital signs | Correct | 9 | 22.5 | 24 | 60.0 | < 0.001 |
| Incorrect | 31 | 77.5 | 16 | 40.0 | ||
| Priority | Correct | 29 | 72.5 | 30 | 75.0 | 0.7994 |
| Incorrect | 11 | 27.5 | 10 | 25.0 | ||
Distribution of inter-rater responses in relation to the gold standard in recording vital signs in phases 1 and 2 of the study. Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil, 2018
| Inter-rater responses: | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vital signs | N | % | N | % |
| Different | 3 | 10% | 0 | 0% |
| None | 1 | 3% | 0 | 0% |
| Missing vital signs | 17 | 55% | 11 | 69% |
| Exceeding vital signs | 10 | 32% | 5 | 31% |
| Total | 31 | 100% | 16 | 100% |
Distribution of inter-rater responses in relation to the gold standard in determining priority in phases 1 and 2 of the study. Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil, 2018
| Attribute | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority | N | % | N | % |
| Higher | 7 | 64% | 8 | 80% |
| Lower | 3 | 27% | 2 | 20% |
| Blank | 1 | 9% | - | - |
| Total | 11 | 100% | 10 | 100% |