Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, California.
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Mar 1;6(3):e233404. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3404.
Accurate emergency department (ED) triage is essential to prioritize the most critically ill patients and distribute resources appropriately. The most used triage system in the US is the Emergency Severity Index (ESI).
To derive and validate an algorithm to assess the rate of mistriage and to identify characteristics associated with mistriage.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study created operational definitions for each ESI level that use ED visit electronic health record data to classify encounters as undertriaged, overtriaged, or correctly triaged. These definitions were applied to a retrospective cohort to assess variation in triage accuracy by facility and patient characteristics in 21 EDs within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health care system. All ED encounters by patients 18 years and older between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020, were assessed for eligibility. Encounters with missing ESI or incomplete ED time variables and patients who left against medical advice or without being seen were excluded. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2022.
Assigned ESI level.
Rate of undertriage and overtriage by assigned ESI level based on a mistriage algorithm and patient and visit characteristics associated with undertriage and overtriage.
A total of 5 315 176 ED encounters were included. The mean (SD) patient age was 52 (21) years; 44.3% of patients were men and 55.7% were women. In terms of race and ethnicity, 11.1% of participants were Asian, 15.1% were Black, 21.4% were Hispanic, 44.0% were non-Hispanic White, and 8.5% were of other (includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and multiple races or ethnicities), unknown, or missing race or ethnicity. Mistriage occurred in 1 713 260 encounters (32.2%), of which 176 131 (3.3%) were undertriaged and 1 537 129 (28.9%) were overtriaged. The sensitivity of ESI to identify a patient with high-acuity illness (correctly assigning ESI I or II among patients who had a life-stabilizing intervention) was 65.9%. In adjusted analyses, Black patients had a 4.6% (95% CI, 4.3%-4.9%) greater relative risk of overtriage and an 18.5% (95% CI, 16.9%-20.0%) greater relative risk of undertriage compared with White patients, while Black male patients had a 9.9% (95% CI, 9.8%-10.0%) greater relative risk of overtriage and a 41.0% (95% CI, 40.0%-41.9%) greater relative risk of undertriage compared with White female patients. High relative risk of undertriage was found among patients taking high-risk medications (30.3% [95% CI, 28.3%-32.4%]) and those with a greater comorbidity burden (22.4% [95% CI, 20.1%-24.4%]) and recent intensive care unit utilization (36.7% [95% CI, 30.5%-41.4%]).
In this retrospective cohort study of over 5 million ED encounters, mistriage with ESI was common. Quality improvement should focus on limiting critical undertriage, optimizing resource allocation by patient need, and promoting equity.
重要性:准确的急诊分诊对于优先安排最危重的患者和合理分配资源至关重要。美国使用最广泛的分诊系统是紧急严重程度指数(ESI)。
目的:制定并验证一种算法来评估分诊错误率,并确定与分诊错误相关的特征。
设计、地点和参与者:本回顾性队列研究为每个 ESI 级别制定了操作定义,这些定义使用急诊就诊电子健康记录数据来对就诊进行分类,分为分诊不足、分诊过度和正确分诊。这些定义应用于一个回顾性队列,以评估在 Kaiser Permanente Northern California(KPNC)医疗保健系统的 21 个急诊室中,根据设施和患者特征,分诊准确性的变化。评估了 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 12 月 31 日期间 18 岁及以上患者的所有急诊就诊。排除了 ESI 缺失或急诊时间变量不完整的就诊以及未经医嘱离院或未就诊的患者。数据分析于 2021 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 11 月 30 日进行。
暴露:分配的 ESI 级别。
主要结果和测量:根据分诊错误算法和与分诊不足和分诊过度相关的患者和就诊特征,评估分诊不足和分诊过度的比例。
结果:共纳入 531.5176 次急诊就诊。患者平均(SD)年龄为 52(21)岁;44.3%的患者为男性,55.7%为女性。从种族和民族来看,11.1%的参与者为亚裔,15.1%为非裔,21.4%为西班牙裔,44.0%为非西班牙裔白人,8.5%为其他(包括美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民、夏威夷原住民或其他太平洋岛民以及多种族或多种族裔)、未知或种族或民族缺失。分诊错误发生率为 171.326 次就诊(32.2%),其中 176131 次(3.3%)为分诊不足,1537129 次(28.9%)为分诊过度。ESI 识别高急症患者的敏感性(正确分配 ESI I 或 II 级的患者有生命稳定干预)为 65.9%。在调整后的分析中,与白人患者相比,黑人患者分诊过度的相对风险增加了 4.6%(95%CI,4.3%-4.9%),分诊不足的相对风险增加了 18.5%(95%CI,16.9%-20.0%),而黑人男性患者分诊过度的相对风险增加了 9.9%(95%CI,9.8%-10.0%),分诊不足的相对风险增加了 41.0%(95%CI,40.0%-41.9%)。高危药物治疗的患者(30.3%[95%CI,28.3%-32.4%])和合并症负担较重的患者(22.4%[95%CI,20.1%-24.4%])以及近期 ICU 利用的患者(36.7%[95%CI,30.5%-41.4%])分诊不足的相对风险较高。
结论和相关性:在这项超过 500 万次急诊就诊的回顾性队列研究中,ESI 分诊错误很常见。质量改进应侧重于限制严重分诊不足,根据患者需求优化资源分配,并促进公平。