A simple clinical assessment is superior to systematic triage in prediction of mortality in the emergency department
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
A simple clinical assessment is superior to systematic triage in prediction of mortality in the emergency department. / Iversen, Anne Kristine Servais; Kristensen, Michael; Østervig, Rebecca Monett; Køber, Lars; Sölétormos, György; Forberg, Jakob Lundager; Eugen-Olsen, Jesper; Rasmussen, Lars Simon; Schou, Morten; Iversen, Kasper Karmark.
In: Emergency Medicine Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2019, p. 66-71.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - A simple clinical assessment is superior to systematic triage in prediction of mortality in the emergency department
AU - Iversen, Anne Kristine Servais
AU - Kristensen, Michael
AU - Østervig, Rebecca Monett
AU - Køber, Lars
AU - Sölétormos, György
AU - Forberg, Jakob Lundager
AU - Eugen-Olsen, Jesper
AU - Rasmussen, Lars Simon
AU - Schou, Morten
AU - Iversen, Kasper Karmark
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Objective: To compare the Danish Emergency Process Triage (DEPT) with a quick clinical assessment (Eyeball triage) as predictors of short-term mortality in patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: The investigation was designed as a prospective cohort study conducted at North Zealand University Hospital. All patient visits to the ED from September 2013 to December 2013 except minor injuries were included. DEPT was performed by nurses. Eyeball triage was a quick non-systematic clinical assessment based on patient appearance performed by phlebotomists. Both triage methods categorised patients as green (not urgent), yellow, orange or red (most urgent). Primary analysis assessed the association between triage level and 30-day mortality for each triage method. Secondary analyses investigated the relation between triage level and 48-hour mortality as well as the agreement between DEPT and Eyeball triage. Results: A total of 6383 patient visits were included. DEPT was performed for 6290 (98.5%) and Eyeball triage for 6382 (∼100%) of the patient visits. Only patients with both triage assessments were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for 48-hour mortality for patients categorised as yellow was 0.9 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.9) for DEPT compared with 4.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 14.6) for Eyeball triage (green is reference). For orange the HR for DEPT was 2.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 17.1 (95% CI 5.1 to 57.1) for Eyeball triage. For red the HR was 30.9 (95% CI 12.3 to 77.4) for DEPT and 128.7 (95% CI 37.9 to 436.8) for Eyeball triage. For 30-day mortality the HR for patients categorised as yellow was 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.4) for DEPT and 2.4 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.5) for Eyeball triage. For orange the HR was 2.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.6) for DEPT and 7.6 (95% CI 5.1 to 11.2) for Eyeball triage, and for red the HR was 19.1 (95% CI 10.4 to 35.2) for DEPT and 27.1 (95% CI 16.9 to 43.5) for Eyeball triage. Agreement between the two systems was poor (kappa 0.05). Conclusion: Agreement between formalised triage and clinical assessment is poor. A simple clinical assessment by phlebotomists is superior to a formalised triage system to predict short-term mortality in ED patients.
AB - Objective: To compare the Danish Emergency Process Triage (DEPT) with a quick clinical assessment (Eyeball triage) as predictors of short-term mortality in patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: The investigation was designed as a prospective cohort study conducted at North Zealand University Hospital. All patient visits to the ED from September 2013 to December 2013 except minor injuries were included. DEPT was performed by nurses. Eyeball triage was a quick non-systematic clinical assessment based on patient appearance performed by phlebotomists. Both triage methods categorised patients as green (not urgent), yellow, orange or red (most urgent). Primary analysis assessed the association between triage level and 30-day mortality for each triage method. Secondary analyses investigated the relation between triage level and 48-hour mortality as well as the agreement between DEPT and Eyeball triage. Results: A total of 6383 patient visits were included. DEPT was performed for 6290 (98.5%) and Eyeball triage for 6382 (∼100%) of the patient visits. Only patients with both triage assessments were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for 48-hour mortality for patients categorised as yellow was 0.9 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.9) for DEPT compared with 4.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 14.6) for Eyeball triage (green is reference). For orange the HR for DEPT was 2.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 17.1 (95% CI 5.1 to 57.1) for Eyeball triage. For red the HR was 30.9 (95% CI 12.3 to 77.4) for DEPT and 128.7 (95% CI 37.9 to 436.8) for Eyeball triage. For 30-day mortality the HR for patients categorised as yellow was 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.4) for DEPT and 2.4 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.5) for Eyeball triage. For orange the HR was 2.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.6) for DEPT and 7.6 (95% CI 5.1 to 11.2) for Eyeball triage, and for red the HR was 19.1 (95% CI 10.4 to 35.2) for DEPT and 27.1 (95% CI 16.9 to 43.5) for Eyeball triage. Agreement between the two systems was poor (kappa 0.05). Conclusion: Agreement between formalised triage and clinical assessment is poor. A simple clinical assessment by phlebotomists is superior to a formalised triage system to predict short-term mortality in ED patients.
U2 - 10.1136/emermed-2016-206382
DO - 10.1136/emermed-2016-206382
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 30327415
AN - SCOPUS:85055036806
VL - 36
SP - 66
EP - 71
JO - Emergency Medicine Journal
JF - Emergency Medicine Journal
SN - 1472-0205
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 236019388