Maleki Mohammadreza, Fallah Razieh, Riahi Leila, Delavari Sajad, Rezaei Satar
Department of Health Services Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
Amol Imam Reza Hospital, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, IR Iran.
Arch Trauma Res. 2015 Dec 12;4(4):e29214. doi: 10.5812/atr.29214. eCollection 2015 Dec.
Triage for patients' prioritization in the emergency department is a suitable solution to decrease overcrowding. Different methods are used for prioritization that needs effectiveness evaluation.
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the emergency severity index (ESI) 5-level triage system in contrast with spot check triage.
Data for this quasi-experimental study were extracted using a form to review 770 records of patients referred to emergency department of Imam Khomeini hospital (in Sari, north of Iran) during two separated periods each for four months; the first from 20th March to 19th July 2010 and the other from 21 March to 20 July 2011. The method used in the first time was spot check triage and the second one ESI triage. Data were processed with descriptive statistics and analyzed using independent samples t-test (CI = 95%).
Increase from 6.46 to 8.92 minutes in the average time from patient arrival to being visited by a physician (P < 0.001) and increase in average time from physician visit to receive the first nursing care from 7.68 to 15.89 minutes were significant (P < 0.001). The average waiting time for laboratory services was significantly decreased from 112.3 to 84.1 (P = 0.033). Increase in the average waiting time for radiology, decrease in average waiting time for sonography, average length of stay in the emergency department, and number of patients per emergency bed were not significant.
Between the two systems of triage, ESI was more effective than the spot check and in the spatial and temporal domain of research, was a successful method in improving some indicators of emergency and improving the performance indices. Hospital managers by implementation of ESI system can take a step toward new health policies and improve the processes as key tools of continuous quality improvement system.
在急诊科对患者进行优先排序的分诊是缓解过度拥挤的合适解决方案。使用了不同的优先排序方法,这些方法需要进行有效性评估。
本研究旨在评估急诊严重程度指数(ESI)5级分诊系统与抽查分诊相比的有效性。
本准实验研究的数据通过一种表格提取,以回顾在两个分别为期四个月的时间段内转诊至伊玛目霍梅尼医院(位于伊朗北部的萨里)急诊科的770例患者的记录;第一个时间段为2010年3月20日至7月19日,另一个时间段为2011年3月21日至7月20日。第一次使用的方法是抽查分诊,第二次是ESI分诊。数据采用描述性统计进行处理,并使用独立样本t检验进行分析(置信区间 = 95%)。
患者到达至医生接诊的平均时间从6.46分钟增加到8.92分钟(P < 0.001),医生接诊至接受首次护理的平均时间从7.68分钟增加到15.89分钟,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。实验室检查的平均等待时间从112.3分钟显著降至84.1分钟(P = 0.033)。放射科平均等待时间增加、超声检查平均等待时间减少、急诊科平均住院时间以及每张急诊病床的患者数量差异均无统计学意义。
在两种分诊系统中,ESI比分诊抽查更有效,并且在研究的时空范围内,是一种改善某些急诊指标和提高绩效指标的成功方法。医院管理者通过实施ESI系统可以朝着新的卫生政策迈出一步,并将其作为持续质量改进系统的关键工具来改进流程。