Associations of the Emergency Severity Index triage categories with patients' vital signs at triage: a prospective observational study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 1032-1035 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. van der Wulp ◽  
H. A. A. Rullmann ◽  
L. P. H. Leenen ◽  
H. F. van Stel
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Preeti Dalawari ◽  
Jacob Sanning ◽  
Dana Pan ◽  
Jennifer Storm

Background: The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) version 4 (v4) is a triage system based on vital signs, potential limb or organthreat, as well as expected resources needed in the emergency department (ED).Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine accuracy and misclassification rate of ESI triage over one year following implementation.Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of ED encounters from January 2011 to 2012. Charts were selected in one-week intervals every 12 weeks for one year (months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12). Each encounter was reviewed to determine post hoc ESI level based on care in the ED. Descriptive statistics was used to compare the agreement between initial triage and post hoc ESI levels. Sensitivity and specificity for each level was determined. Kruskal Wallis test (KW) and Mann Whitney U (MWU) was used toassess differences in initial versus post hoc ESI levels by month to explore change in accuracy over time.Results: Five hundred and sixty separate ED encounters were included. Agreement was observed in 301 triage encounters (53.8%). Overestimation of the triage level occurred in 131 (23.4%) encounters, while the triage level was underestimated in 128 (22.9%) encounters. There was a significant decline in accuracy during the year (KW = 10.2; p = .037); with the greatest dropbetween month 1 and 9 months (MWU 4,859; p = .035). Sensitivity ranged from 24% to 76% and specificity ranged from 61% to 99%, based on ESI level.Conclusions: Enhanced education and quality improvement process is necessary to improve overall accuracy rates at this site.


2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 208-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ineke van der Wulp ◽  
Leontien M. Sturms ◽  
Augustinus J.P. Schrijvers ◽  
Henk F. van Stel

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-216
Author(s):  
Y. K. Gunaydin ◽  
A. Çağlar ◽  
K. Kokulu ◽  
C. G. Yıldız ◽  
Z. D. Dündar ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Milla Jousi ◽  
Marja Mäkinen ◽  
Johanna Kaartinen ◽  
Leena Meriläinen ◽  
Maaret Castrén

Abstract Background In the pre-hospital setting, non-urgent patients with non-specific chief complaints pose assessment challenges for the emergency medical systems (EMS). Severely ill patients should be identified among these patients, and unnecessary transport to the emergency department (ED) should be avoided. Unnecessary admissions burden EDs, deplete EMS resources and can even be harmful to patients, especially elderly patients. Therefore, tools for facilitating pre-hospital decision-making are needed. They could be based on vital signs or point-of-care laboratory biomarkers. In this study, we examined whether the biomarker soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), either alone or combined with C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or lactate, could predict discharge from the ED and act as a pre-hospital support tool for non-conveyance decision-making. Methods This was a prospective, observational study of adult patients with normal or near-normal vital signs transported by an EMS to an ED with a code referring to deteriorated general condition. The levels of suPAR, CRP and lactate in the patients’ pre-hospital blood samples were analysed. The values of hospitalized patients were compared to those of discharged patients to determine whether these biomarkers could predict direct discharge from the ED. Results A total of 109 patients (median age: 81 years) were included in the study. Of those, 52% were hospitalized and 48% were discharged from the ED. No statistically significant association was found between suPAR and the ED discharge vs hospitalization outcome (OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.97–1.13, AUROC: 0.58, 95% CI 0.47–0.69). Adding CRP (AUROC: 0.64, 95% CI 0.54–0.75) or lactate (AUROC: 0.60, 95% CI 0.49–0.71) to the regression models did not improve their diagnostic accuracy. None of the patients with a suPAR value of less than 2 ng/ml were admitted to hospital, while 64% of the patients with a suPAR value of more than 6 ng/ml were hospitalized. Conclusion Pre-hospital suPAR measurements alone or combined with CRP and/or lactate measurements could not predict the ED discharge or hospital admission of 109 non-urgent EMS patients with non-specific chief complaints and normal or near-normal vital signs.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew T. Reisner ◽  
Shwetha Edla ◽  
Jianbo Liu ◽  
John T. Rubin ◽  
Jill E. Thorsen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Bingisser ◽  
Severin Manuel Baerlocher ◽  
Tobias Kuster ◽  
Ricardo Nieves Ortega ◽  
Christian H. Nickel

Our objective was to compare informal physicians’ disease severity ratings (PDSR) at presentation with the well-established Emergency Severity Index (ESI) in order to test for non-inferiority of the discriminatory ability regarding hospitalization, intensive care, and mortality. We made a prospective observational study with consecutive enrollment. At presentation, the PDSR and subsequently Emergency Severity Index (ESI) levels were recorded. The primary outcome was the non-inferiority of the discriminatory ability (PDSR versus ESI) regarding hospitalization, intensive care, and mortality. The secondary outcomes were the reliability, the predictive validity, and the safety of PDSR. We included 6859 patients. The median age was 51 years (interquartile range (IQR) = 33 to 72 years); 51.4% were males. There were 159 non-survivors (2.4%) at the 30 day follow-up. The PDSR’s discriminatory ability was non-inferior to the ESI’s discriminatory ability. The safety assessment showed mortality of <0.5% in low-acuity patients in both tools. The predictive validity increased by 3.5 to 7 times if adding high-acuity PDSR to ESI in all categories with mortality of >1%. Our data showed the non-inferiority of PDSR compared with ESI regarding discriminatory ability, a moderate reliability, and an acceptable safety of both tools.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document