Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:41:34.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of training on nurse agreement using an electronic triage system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Sandy L. Dong ,
Michael J. Bullard ,
David P. Meurer ,
Sandra Blitz ,
Brian R. Holroyd  and
Brian H. Rowe
Sandy L. Dong
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Capital Health, Edmonton, Alta.
Michael J. Bullard*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Capital Health, Edmonton, Alta.
David P. Meurer
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Sandra Blitz
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Brian R. Holroyd
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Capital Health, Edmonton, Alta.
Brian H. Rowe
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Capital Health, Edmonton, Alta.
*
1G1.50 Walter C. Mackenzie Centre, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 – 112 St., Edmonton AB T6G 2B7; [email protected].

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

Emergency department (ED) triage prioritizes patients based on urgency of care, and the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is the national standard. We describe the inter-rater agreement and manual overrides of nurses using a CTAS-compliant web-based triage tool (eTRIAGE) for 2 different intensities of staff training.

Methods:

This prospective study was conducted in an urban tertiary care ED. In phase 1, eTRIAGE was deployed after a 3-hour training course for 24 triage nurses who were asked to share this knowledge during regular triage shifts with colleagues who had not received training (n = 77). In phase 2, a targeted group of 8 triage nurses underwent further training with eTRIAGE. In each phase, patients were assessed first by the duty triage nurse and then by a blinded independent study nurse, both using eTRIAGE. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using kappa (weighted κ) statistics.

Results:

In phase 1, 569 patients were enrolled with 513 (90.2%) complete records; 577 patients were enrolled in phase 2 with 555 (96.2%) complete records. Inter-rater agreement during phase 1 was moderate (weighted κ = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.62); agreement improved in phase 2 (weighted κ = 0.65; 95% CI 0.60–0.70). Manual overrides of eTRIAGE scores were infrequent (approximately 10%) during both periods.

Conclusions:

Agreement between study nurses and duty triage nurses, both using eTRIAGE, was moderate to good, with a trend toward improvement with additional training. Triage overrides were infrequent. Continued attempts to refine the triage process and training appear warranted.

Keywords

triageinformation technologycomputerized decision supporttechnology implementation
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 260 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2007

References

1.Beveridge, R, Clarke, B, Janes, L, et al. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: implementation guidelines. Can J Emerg Med. 1999;1(3 Supplement):S1–S24.Google Scholar
2.Beveridge, R. CAEP issues. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: a new and critical element in health care reform. Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. J Emerg Med 1998;16:507–11.Google Scholar
3.Murray, MJ, Bullard, MJ, Grafstein, E. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Ccale implementation guidelines. Can J Emerg Med. 2004;6:421–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Spence, JM, Beaton, DE, Murray, MJ, et al. Does the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale correlate with admission to the hospital from the emergency department? Can J Emerg Med. 2003;6:180.Google Scholar
5.Stenstrom, R, Grafstein, GE, Innes, G, et al. The predictive validity of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). Can J Emerg Med. 2003;5:184.Google Scholar
6.Murray, MJ, Levis, G. Does triage level (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale) correlate with resource utilization for emergency department visits? Can J Emerg Med. 2003;6:180.Google Scholar
7.Jimenez, JG, Murray, MJ, Beveridge, R, et al. Implementation of the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale in the principality of Andorra: Can triage parameters serve as emergency department quality indicators? Can J Emerg Med. 2003;5:315–22.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Grafstein, E, Innes, G, Westman, J, et al. Inter-rater reliability of a computerized presenting-complaint-linked triage system in an urban emergency department. Can J EmergMed. 2003;5:323–9.Google Scholar
9.Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Reliability of computerized emergency triage. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:269–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Emergency triage: comparing a novel computer triage program with standard triage. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:502–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Handler, JA, Adams, JG, Feied, CF, et al. Emergency medicine information technology consensus conference: executive summary. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1112–3.Google Scholar
12.Grafstein, E, Bullard, MJ, Unger, B. The Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDrosoph Inf Serv) presenting complaint list version 1.0. Can J Emerg Med. 2003;5:27–34.Google Scholar
13.Bullard, MJ, Meurer, D, Pratt, S, et al. Evaluation of triage nurse satisfaction with training and use of an electronic triage tool. Can J Emerg Med. 2003;5:183–4.Google Scholar
14.Fleiss, JL, Levin, B, Paik, MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 3rd Edition. New Jersey (NY): J. Wiley; 2003.Google Scholar
15.Goransson, K, Ehrenberg, A, Marklund, B, et al. Accuracy and concordance of nurses in emergency department triage. Scand J Caring Sci 2005;19:432–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Beveridge, R, Ducharme, J, Janes, L, et al. Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: interrater agreement. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:155–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Manos, D, Petrie, DA, Beveridge, R,et al. Inter-observer agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale. Can J Emerg Med. 2002;4:16–22.Google Scholar
18.Worster, A, Gilboy, N, Fernandes, CM, et al. Assessment of interobserver reliability of two five-level triage and acuity scales: a randomized controlled trial. Can J EmergMed 2004;6:240–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Wuerz, RC, Milne, LW, Eitel, DR, et al. Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:236–42.Google Scholar
20.Eitel, DR, Travers, DA, Rosenau, AM, et al. The Emergency Severity Index Triage Algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:1070–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Tanabe, P, Gimbel, R, Yarnold, PR, et al. Reliability and validity of scores on the Emergency Severity Index version 3. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:59–65.Google Scholar
22.Kramer, MS, Feinstein, AR. Clinical biostatistics. LIV. The bio-statistics ofconcordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;29:111–23.Google Scholar
23.Warren, D, Jarvis, A, Leblanc, L. Canadian Pediatric Triage and Acuity Scale: implementation guidelines for emergency departments. Can J Emerg Med. 2001;3(4 Supplement):S1–S27.Google Scholar
24.Fernandes, CM, Wuerz, R, Clark, S, et al. How reliable is emergency department triage? Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:141–7.Google Scholar
25.Berman, DA, Coleridge, ST, McMurry, TA. Computerized algorithm-directed triage in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:141–4.Google Scholar
26.Maningas, PA, Hime, DA, Parker, DE,et al. The Soterion Rapid Triage System: evaluation of inter-rater reliability and validity. J Emerg Med; 2006;30:461–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Australasian College for Emergency Medicine. National Triage Scale. Emerg Med 1994;6:145–6.Google Scholar
28.Mackway-Jones, K, Manchester Triage Group. Emergency triage. London (UK): BMJ; 1997.Google Scholar
29.Lapointe, L, Rivard, S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. CMAJ 2006;174:1573–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Rodger, MA, Maser, E, Stiell, I, et al. The interobserver reliability of pretest probability assessment in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 2005;116:101–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Stiell, IG, Wells, GA, Vandemheen, K, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001;357:1391–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed