Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 28;19(8):e0297321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297321. eCollection 2024.
Canadian patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) typically undergo a triage process where they are assessed by a specially trained nurse and assigned a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score, indicating their level of acuity and urgency of assessment. We sought to assess the ability of patients to self-triage themselves through use of one of two of our proprietary self-triage tools, and how this would compare with the standard nurse-driven triage process.
We enrolled a convenience sample of ambulatory ED patients aged 17 years or older who presented with chief complaints of chest pain, abdominal pain, breathing problems, or musculoskeletal pain. Participants completed one, or both, of an algorithm generated self-triage (AGST) survey, or visual acuity scale (VAS) based self-triage tool which subsequently generated a CTAS score. Our primary outcome was to assess the accuracy of these tools to the CTAS score generated through the nurse-driven triage process.
A total of 223 patients were included in our analysis. Of these, 32 (14.3%) presented with chest pain, 25 (11.2%) with shortness of breath, 75 (33.6%) with abdominal pain, and 91 (40.8%) with musculoskeletal pain. Of the total number of patients, 142 (47.2%) completed the AGST tool, 159 (52.8%) completed the VAS tool and 78 (25.9%) completed both tools. When compared to the nurse-driven triage standard, both the AGST and VAS tools had poor levels of agreement for each of the four presenting complaints.
Self-triage through use of an AGST or VAS tool is inaccurate compared to the established standard of nurse-driven triage. Although existing literature exists which suggests that self-triage tools developed for specific subsets of complaints may be feasible, our results would suggest that adopting the self-triage approach on a broader scale for all-comers to the ED does not appear to be a viable option to enhance the current triage process. Further study is required to show if self-triage can be used in the ED to optimize the triage process.
加拿大患者在急诊科(ED)就诊时,通常会经历分诊过程,由经过专门培训的护士对其进行评估,并根据加拿大分诊和 acuity 量表(CTAS)评分对其 acuity 和评估紧迫性进行分类。我们旨在评估患者通过使用我们的两种专有自我分诊工具之一进行自我分诊的能力,以及这与标准护士驱动分诊过程的比较。
我们纳入了方便抽样的门诊 ED 患者,年龄在 17 岁及以上,主要主诉为胸痛、腹痛、呼吸困难或肌肉骨骼疼痛。参与者完成了一项由算法生成的自我分诊(AGST)调查,或基于视力表(VAS)的自我分诊工具,该工具随后生成 CTAS 评分。我们的主要结果是评估这些工具对护士驱动分诊过程生成的 CTAS 评分的准确性。
我们的分析共纳入 223 例患者。其中,32 例(14.3%)表现为胸痛,25 例(11.2%)为呼吸困难,75 例(33.6%)为腹痛,91 例(40.8%)为肌肉骨骼疼痛。在所有患者中,142 例(47.2%)完成了 AGST 工具,159 例(52.8%)完成了 VAS 工具,78 例(25.9%)完成了这两种工具。与护士驱动的分诊标准相比,AGST 和 VAS 工具在四种表现症状的每一种中都显示出较差的一致性。
与既定的护士驱动分诊标准相比,使用 AGST 或 VAS 工具进行自我分诊是不准确的。尽管现有文献表明,针对特定投诉子集开发的自我分诊工具可能是可行的,但我们的结果表明,在 ED 中采用自我分诊方法对所有患者进行分诊,似乎不是增强当前分诊流程的可行选择。需要进一步的研究来证明自我分诊是否可以在 ED 中用于优化分诊流程。