Author:
Viana João,Bragança Raquel,Santos João Vasco,Alves Alexandra,Santos Almeida,Freitas Alberto
Abstract
Abstract
With the increasing influx of patients and frequent overcrowding, the adoption of a valid triage system, capable of distinguishing patients who need urgent care, from those who can wait safely is paramount. Hence, the aim of this study is to evaluate the validity of the Paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (PaedCTAS) in a Portuguese tertiary hospital. Furthermore, we aim to study the performance and appropriateness of the different surrogate severity markers to validate triage. This is a retrospective study considering all visits to the hospital’s Paediatric Emergency Department (PED) between 2014 and 2019. This study considers cut-offs on all triage levels for dichotomization in order to calculate validity measures e.g. sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios, ROC curves; using hospital admission, admission to intensive care and the use of resources as outcomes/markers of severity. Over the study period there were 0.2% visits triaged as Level 1, 5.7% as Level 2, 39.4% as Level 3, 50.5% as Level 4, 4.2% as Level 5, from a total of 452,815 PED visits. The area under ROC curve was 0.96, 0.71, 0.76, 0.78, 0.59 for the surrogate markers: “Admitted to intensive care”; “Admitted to intermediate care”; “Admitted to hospital”; “Investigations performed in the PED” and “Uses PED resources”, respectively. The association found between triage levels and the surrogate markers of severity suggests that the PedCTAS is highly valid. Different surrogate outcome markers convey different degrees of severity, hence different degrees of urgency. Therefore, the cut-offs to calculate validation measures and the thresholds of such measures should be chosen accordingly.
Funder
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
Universidade do Porto
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Information Management,Health Informatics,Information Systems,Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference41 articles.
1. A. Fernández, M. I. Ares, S. Garcia, L. Martinez-Indart, S. Mintegi, and J. Benito, “The Validity of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle as the First Step in the Triage Process in a Pediatric Emergency Department:,” Pediatr. Emerg. Care, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 234–238, Apr. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000000717.
2. G. FitzGerald, G. A. Jelinek, D. Scott, and M. F. Gerdtz, “Emergency department triage revisited,” Emerg. Med. J., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 86–92, Feb. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2009.077081.
3. Z. S. Morris, A. Boyle, K. Beniuk, and S. Robinson, “Emergency department crowding: towards an agenda for evidence-based intervention: Figure 1,” Emerg. Med. J., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 460–466, Jun. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2010.107078.
4. Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, “The Australasian Triage Scale,” Emerg. Med. Fremantle WA, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 335–336, Sep. 2002, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00371.x.
5. “Implementation Guidelines for The Canadian Emergency Department Triage & Acuity Scale (CTAS).” [Online]. Available: https://ctas-phctas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ctased16_98.pdf (accessed Jan. 15, 2022).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献