Molina-López Alejandro, Cruz-Islas Jeremy Bernardo, Palma-Cortés Mauricio, Guizar-Sánchez Diana Patricia, Garfias-Rau César Yehú, Ontiveros-Uribe Martha Patricia, Fresán-Orellana Ana
Continuous Psychiatric Care Department, Clinical Services Direction, Ramon de la Fuente National Institute of Psychiatry, Calz. México-Xochimilco 101, Mexico City, 14370, Mexico.
Education Direction, Ramon de la Fuente National Institute of Psychiatry, Mexico City, Mexico.
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 10;16:30. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-0727-7.
Classification of Psychiatric Emergency Presentations (PEP) is not sufficiently clear due to their inherent high inter-subjectivity and lack of validated triage instruments. In order to improve current classification of psychiatric emergency presentations (PEP) at Emergency Departments, we implemented and validated the Color-Risk Psychiatric Triage (CRPT), an instrument for classifying PEP risk by sorting one to five color/risk levels and one to thirty-two possible conditions arranged by risk.
Users who visited the Emergency Department (ED) of a Mexican psychiatric hospital from Dec 1st, 2008 to Dec 1st, 2009 were included. One CRPT was assessed by an ED psychiatrist to each patient upon their arrival to ED. Some patients were randomly assessed simultaneously with an additional CRPT and a Crisis and Triage Rating Scale (CTRS) to test validity and reliability of the CRPT.
A total of 7,631 CRPT assessments were included. The majority of PEP were non-urgent (74.28 %). For the validation phase n = 158 patients were included. CRPT score showed higher concurrent validity than CRPT color/risk. CRPT level/risk and score showed highest concurrent validity within dangerousness domain of CTRS (r = 0.703, p < 0.0001). CRPT and CTRS scores showed similar predictive validity (p < 0.0001). High intraclass correlation coefficient (0.982) and Cohen's Kappa (0.89) were observed for CRPT score (r = 0.982, p < 0.0001).
CRPT appeared to be a useful instrument for PEP classification due to its concurrent validity, predictive validity and reliability. CRPT score showed higher correlations than the CRPT color/risk. The five levels of risk provided by the CRPT appear to represent a simple and specific method for classifying PEP. This approach considers actual or potential risk, rather than severity, as the main factor for sorting PEP, which improves upon the current approach to emergency classification that is mainly based on the criterion of severity. Regardless of the triage procedure, emergency assessments should no longer classify PEP as "not real emergencies."
由于精神科急诊表现(PEP)本身具有高度的主观性且缺乏经过验证的分诊工具,其分类尚不够清晰。为了改进急诊科目前对精神科急诊表现的分类,我们实施并验证了颜色-风险精神科分诊工具(CRPT),这是一种通过将一到五个颜色/风险级别以及按风险排列的一到三十二种可能情况进行分类来评估PEP风险的工具。
纳入2008年12月1日至2009年12月1日期间前往墨西哥一家精神病医院急诊科就诊的患者。每位患者到达急诊科时,由一名急诊科精神科医生对其进行一次CRPT评估。部分患者在接受CRPT评估的同时,还随机接受了另一次CRPT评估以及危机与分诊评定量表(CTRS)评估,以测试CRPT的有效性和可靠性。
共纳入7631次CRPT评估。大多数PEP为非紧急情况(74.28%)。在验证阶段,纳入了n = 158例患者。CRPT评分显示出比CRPT颜色/风险更高的同时效度。CRPT级别/风险和评分在CTRS的危险性领域内显示出最高的同时效度(r = 0.703,p < 0.0001)。CRPT和CTRS评分显示出相似的预测效度(p < 0.0001)。CRPT评分的组内相关系数较高(0.982),Cohen's Kappa值为0.89(r = 0.982,p < 0.0001)。
由于其同时效度、预测效度和可靠性,CRPT似乎是一种用于PEP分类的有用工具。CRPT评分显示出比CRPT颜色/风险更高的相关性。CRPT提供的五个风险级别似乎代表了一种简单且特定的PEP分类方法。这种方法将实际或潜在风险而非严重程度视为对PEP进行分类的主要因素,改进了当前主要基于严重程度标准的急诊分类方法。无论分诊程序如何,急诊评估都不应再将PEP归类为“非真正的紧急情况”。