C Mayerhofer1, H Rettl2, I Graziadei3, H Stummer4. 1. Institut für Management und Ökonomie im Gesundheitswesen, Eduard-Wallnöfer-Zentrum 1, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Österreich. ch.mayerhofer@hotmail.com. 2. Abteilung für Qualitäts- und Risikomanagement, Landeskrankenhaus Hall in Tirol, Hall in Tirol, Österreich. 3. Abteilung für Innere Medizin, Landeskrankenhaus Hall in Tirol, Hall in Tirol, Österreich. 4. Institut für Management und Ökonomie im Gesundheitswesen, Eduard-Wallnöfer-Zentrum 1, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Österreich.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Manchester Triage System (MTS) was first introduced in 1996. Since then, the original English MTS version has undergone multiple evaluations of its validity and reliability. Due to translation and differing algorithms, only contradictory data regarding accuracy are available for the German MTS version. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the current German version of the MTS in a retrospective observational setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All surgical and medical patients presenting at the emergency department of an Austrian regional hospital between 1 and 30 July 2020 were included in this study. Data of vital parameters at the time of triage, overall hospitalisation rate, length of hospitalisation, mortality rate as well as referral and discharge modalities were collected. RESULTS: A total of 773 patients were included in the study after primary triage. There was a significant correlation between risk level and both hospitalisation rate (p < 0.001) and the length of hospitalisation (p = 0.001). Interestingly, this correlation was lower in patients over 70 years (r2 = 0.101 vs. 0.045). Vital signs and mortality rate did not correlate significantly with the initial risk level. The average time for one triage process was 2.1 ± 3.9 min. CONCLUSION: The German version of the MTS shows good correlation with central risk surrogates, but this correlation is weaker in the subgroup of elderly patients. As the original English version, it does not predict long-term mortality. In clinical practice, the German version of the MTS is as good as the original version in enabling the urgency of treatment to be rapidly assessed so that resource allocation can be optimised.
BACKGROUND: The Manchester Triage System (MTS) was first introduced in 1996. Since then, the original English MTS version has undergone multiple evaluations of its validity and reliability. Due to translation and differing algorithms, only contradictory data regarding accuracy are available for the German MTS version. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the current German version of the MTS in a retrospective observational setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All surgical and medical patients presenting at the emergency department of an Austrian regional hospital between 1 and 30 July 2020 were included in this study. Data of vital parameters at the time of triage, overall hospitalisation rate, length of hospitalisation, mortality rate as well as referral and discharge modalities were collected. RESULTS: A total of 773 patients were included in the study after primary triage. There was a significant correlation between risk level and both hospitalisation rate (p < 0.001) and the length of hospitalisation (p = 0.001). Interestingly, this correlation was lower in patients over 70 years (r2 = 0.101 vs. 0.045). Vital signs and mortality rate did not correlate significantly with the initial risk level. The average time for one triage process was 2.1 ± 3.9 min. CONCLUSION: The German version of the MTS shows good correlation with central risk surrogates, but this correlation is weaker in the subgroup of elderly patients. As the original English version, it does not predict long-term mortality. In clinical practice, the German version of the MTS is as good as the original version in enabling the urgency of treatment to be rapidly assessed so that resource allocation can be optimised.
Authors: Michael Christ; Florian Grossmann; Daniela Winter; Roland Bingisser; Elke Platz Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 5.594