No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Inter-rater reliability of a computerized presenting-complaint–linked triage system in an urban emergency department
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2015
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.
Background:
Triage reliability studies typically use hypothetical scenarios and weighted kappa scores where agreement within one level is considered satisfactory. But if triage category is used to help define ED case-mix groups for comparative or benchmarking processes, agreement on exact triage level and major system involved is important. Our hypothesis was that a computerized menu that links presenting complaints to preferred triage levels (PC-linked triage) would provide high triage reliability.
Objectives:
Our objective was to assess inter-rater reliability of PC-linked triage using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in a real-time clinical setting, considering agreement on exact triage level and primary body system involved.
Methods:
On duty triage nurses entered patient presenting complaint and PC-linked triage level as per standard procedure. In a convenience sample of patients, a second nurse, blinded to triage assignment, observed the triage interaction and independently entered presenting complaint and triage level on a dummy terminal.
Results:
During the study, 15 nurse pairs triaged 266 patients. Study patients matched actual emergency department case mix closely. Triage nurses agreed exactly in 74% of cases and within one level in 94% of cases. The unweighted kappa value was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60–0.73) and the quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68–0.81). Kappa for agreement on major system involved was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69–0.91).
Conclusion:
PC-linked triage has high inter-rater reliability in a real-time clinical setting. PC-linked triage may be useful as one factor in defining case-mix groups for benchmarking and comparative purposes.
- Type
- EM Advances • Innovations en MU
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2003
References
1.Beveridge, R, Clarke, B, Janes, L, Savage, N, Thompson, J, Dodd, G, et al. Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: implementation guidelines. Can J Emerg Med 1999;1(suppl 3):S1–24. Available: www.caep.ca/002.policies/00202.ctas.htm (accessed 2003 Aug 13).Google Scholar
2.Stenstrom, R, Grafstein, E, Innes, G, Christenson, J. The predictive validity of the Canadian triage and acuity scale (CTAS) [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med 2003;5(3):184.Google Scholar
3.Grafstein, E, Unger, B, Bullard, M, Innes, G, for the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Working Group. Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Presenting Complaint List (Version 1.0). Can J Emerg Med 2003;5(1):27–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Australasian College of Emergency Medicine. A National Triage Scale [policy]. Emerg Med 1994;6:145–6.Google Scholar
5.Murray, MJ, Bondy, S. The reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale in the prehospital setting: interrater agreement between paramedics and nurses [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med 2002;4(2):128.Google Scholar
6.Jelinek, G, Little, M. Interrater reliability of the National Triage Scale. Emerg Med 1996;8:226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Grafstein, E, Innes, G, Christenson, J, Clarke, L. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale triage: reliability for high acuity patients [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med 2001;3(2):143.Google Scholar
8.Manos, D, Petrie, DA, Beveridge, RC, Walter, S, Ducharme, J. Interobserver agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale. Can J Emerg Med 2002;4(1):16–22.Google Scholar
9.Fernandes, C, Wuerz, R, Clark, S, Djurdjev, O. How reliable is emergency department triage? Ann Emerg Med 1999;34(2):141–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Wuerz, RC, Milne, LW, Eitel, DR, Travers, D, Gilboy, N. Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7(3):236–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Beveridge, R, Ducharme, J, Janes, L, Beaulieu, S, Walter, S. Reliability of the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: interrater agreement. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:155–9.Google Scholar
12.Doherty, S. Application of the National Triage Scale is not uniform. Aust Emerg Nurs J 1996;1(1):26.Google Scholar
13.Dilley, S, Standen, P. Victorian triage nurses demonstrate concordance in the application of the National Triage Scale. Emerg Med 1998;10:12–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Landis, J, Koch, G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.Google Scholar
15.Byrt, T, Bishop, J, Carlin, J. Bias. Prevalence and Kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46(5)423–9.Google Scholar
16.Aronsky, D, Kendall, D, Merkley, K, James, BC, Haug, PJ. A comprehensive set of coded chief complaints for the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8(10): 980–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Cleary, MI, Ashby, RH, Jelinek, GA, Lagaida, R. The future of casemix in emergency medicine and ambulatory care. Med J Aust 1994;161 (suppl):S30–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access