The emergency severity index triage algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid

被引:227
作者
Eitel, DR
Travers, DA
Rosenau, AM
Gilboy, N
Wuerz, RC
机构
[1] York Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Wellspan Hlth, York, PA 17405 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept Emergency Med, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[3] Lehigh Valley Hosp & Hlth Network, Dept Emergency Med, Allentown, PA USA
[4] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
triage; hospital emergency service; nursing assessment; clinical protocols;
D O I
10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00350-6
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100602 [中西医结合临床];
摘要
Objectives: Initial studies have shown improved reliability and validity of a new triage tool, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), over conventional three-level scales at two university medical centers. After pilot implementation and validation, the ESI was revised to include pediatric and updated vital signs criteria. The goal of this study was to assess ESI version (v.) 2 reliability and validity at seven emergency departments (EDs) in three states. Methods: In part 1, interrater reliability was assessed using weighted kappa analysis of written training cases and postimplementation by a random sampling of actual patient triages. In part 2, validity was analyzed using a prospective cohort with stratified random sampling at each site. The ESI was compared with outcomes including resource consumption, inpatient admission, ED length of stay, and 60-day all-cause mortality. Results: Weighted kappa analysis of interrater reliability ranged from 0.70 to 0.80 for the written scenarios (n = 3,289) and 0.69 to 0.87 for patient triages (n = 386). Outcomes for the validity cohort (n = 1,042) included hospitalization rates by ESI triage level: level 1, 83%; 2, 67%; 3, 42%; 4, 8%; level 5, 4%. Sixty-day all-cause mortality by triage level was as follows: level 1, 25%; 2, 4%; 3, 2%; 4, 1%; and 5, 0%. Conclusions: ESI v. 2 triage produced reliable, valid stratification of patients across seven sites. ESI triage should be evaluated as an ED casemix identification system for uniform data collection in the United States and compared with other major ED triage methods.
引用
收藏
页码:1070 / 1080
页数:11
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]
Inability to follow up ED patients by telephone: There muse be 50 ways to leave your number [J].
Adams, SL ;
Thompson, DA .
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1996, 3 (03) :271-273
[2]
Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, 2002, AUSTR TRIAG SCAL ATS
[3]
Beveridge R, 1998, J Emerg Med, V16, P507
[4]
Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: Interrater agreement [J].
Beveridge, R ;
Ducharme, J ;
Janes, L ;
Beaulieu, S ;
Walter, S .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1999, 34 (02) :155-159
[5]
Telephone contact of patients visiting a large, municipal emergency department: Can we rely on numbers given during routine registration? [J].
Boudreaux, ED ;
Ary, RD ;
St John, B ;
Mandry, CV .
JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2000, 18 (04) :409-415
[6]
*CAEP, 2002, CAN TRIAG AC SCAL EM
[7]
The effects of bonus payments on emergency service performance in Victoria [J].
Cameron, PA ;
Kennedy, MP ;
McNeil, JJ .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 1999, 171 (05) :243-246
[8]
Emergency medicine in Australia [J].
Cameron, PA ;
Bradt, DA ;
Ashby, R .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1996, 28 (03) :342-346
[9]
THE FUTURE OF CASEMIX IN EMERGENCY-MEDICINE AND AMBULATORY CARE [J].
CLEARY, MI ;
ASHBY, RH ;
JELINEK, GA ;
LAGAIDA, R .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 1994, 161 :S30-S33
[10]
Cooke MW, 1999, J ACCID EMERG MED, V16, P179