Asaro Phillip V, Lewis Lawrence M
Division of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Oct;15(10):916-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00236.x. Epub 2008 Sep 10.
The objective was to determine effects of a modification in triage process on triage acuity distribution in general and among patients with conditions requiring time-sensitive therapy.
The authors retrospectively reviewed triage acuity distributions before and after modification of their triage process that entailed conversion from the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). The authors calculated the ratio of the odds of being triaged to a nonemergent level (3, 4, or 5) under ESI to the odds of being triaged as nonemergent under CTAS. The authors calculated sensitivity and specificity of triage to an emergent acuity level (1 or 2) for identifying patients with common presentations who required time-sensitive care.
There were shifts from higher to lower acuity levels for all subsets, with odds ratios ranging from 2.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75 to 2.86) for all patients to 21.39 (95% CI = 14.66 to 31.21) for patients over 55 years of age with a chief complaint of chest pain. The sensitivity of triage for identifying abdominal pain patients requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or operating room (OR) or emergency department (ED) death was 80.7% (95% CI = 73.2 to 86.5) before versus 50.8% (95% CI = 43.5 to 58.1) following the transition to ESI. Specificity under CTAS, 55.2% (95% CI = 54.0 to 56.4), was significantly lower than under ESI, 83.6% (95% CI = 82.7 to 84.4). The authors found similar effects for patients presenting with chest pain.
Monitoring for changes in the sensitivity of the triage process for detecting patients with potentially time-sensitive conditions should be considered when modifying triage processes. Further work should be done to determine if the decreased sensitivity seen in this study occurs in other institutions converting to ESI, and potential causative factors should be explored.
本研究旨在确定分诊流程的改变对总体分诊 acuity 分布以及对需要及时治疗的患者分诊 acuity 分布的影响。
作者回顾性分析了分诊流程改变前后的分诊 acuity 分布情况,该改变是从加拿大分诊与 acuity 量表(CTAS)转换为急诊严重程度指数(ESI)。作者计算了在 ESI 下分诊为非紧急级别(3、4 或 5)的几率与在 CTAS 下分诊为非紧急情况的几率之比。作者计算了分诊为紧急 acuity 级别(1 或 2)以识别需要及时护理的常见症状患者的敏感性和特异性。
所有亚组的 acuity 级别均从较高向较低转变,比值比范围从所有患者的 2.80(95%置信区间[CI]=2.75 至 2.86)到 55 岁以上以胸痛为主诉患者的 21.39(95%CI=14.66 至 31.21)。在转换为 ESI 之前,分诊识别需要入住重症监护病房(ICU)或手术室(OR)或急诊科(ED)死亡的腹痛患者的敏感性为 80.7%(95%CI=73.2 至 86.5),而转换后为 50.8%(95%CI=43.5 至 58.1)。CTAS 下的特异性为 55.2%(95%CI=54.0 至 56.4),显著低于 ESI 下的 83.6%(95%CI=82.7 至