• LamRex Pui KinRPKhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5937-898924-hour Outpatient and Emergency Department, Gleneagles Hong Kong Hospital, 1 Nam Fung Path, Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. lampkrex@hku.hk.Emergency Medicine Unit, Li K, Shing Lam Kwok, Vi Ka Chaang, Lujie Chen, Eric Ho Yin Lau, and Kin Ling Chan.
• 24-hour Outpatient and Emergency Department, Gleneagles Hong Kong Hospital, 1 Nam Fung Path, Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. lampkrex@hku.hk.
• Int J Emerg Med. 2020 Jun 10; 13 (1): 28.

BackgroundDespite its continued use in many low-volume emergency departments (EDs), 3-level triage systems have not been extensively studied, especially on live triage cases. We have modified from the Australasian Triage Scale and developed a 3-level triage scale, and sought to evaluate its validity, reliability, and over- and under-triage rates in real patient encounters in our setting.MethodThis was a cross-sectional study in a single ED with 24,000 attendances per year. At triage, each patient was simultaneously assessed by a triage nurse, an adjudicator (the "criterion standard"), and a study nurse independently. Predictive validity was determined by comparing clinical outcomes, such as hospitalization, across triage levels. The discriminating performance of the triage tool in identifying patients requiring earlier medical attention was determined. Inter-observer reliability between the triage nurse and criterion standard, and across providers were determined using kappa statistics.ResultsIn total, 453 triage ratings of 151 triage cases, involving 17 ED triage nurses and 57 nurse pairs, were analysed. The proportion of hospital admission significantly increased with a higher triage rating. The performance of the scale in identifying patients requiring earlier medical attention was as follows: sensitivity, 68.2% (95% CI 45.1-86.1%); specificity, 99.2% (95% CI 95.8-100%); positive predictive value, 93.8% (95% CI 67.6-99.1%); and negative predictive value, 94.8% (95% CI 90.8-97.1%). The over-triage and under-triage rates were 0.7% and 4.6%, respectively. Agreement between the triage nurse and criterion standard was substantial (quadratic-weighted kappa = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.60-0.92, p < 0.001), so was the agreement across nurses (quadratic-weighted kappa = 0.81, 95% CI 0.65-0.97, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe 3-level triage system appears to have good validity and reasonable reliability in a low-volume ED setting. Further studies comparing 3-level and prevailing 5-level triage scales in live triage encounters and different ED settings are warranted.

4 keywords...

hide…