Lammila-Escalera Elena, Greenfield Geva, Aldakhil Reham, Mak Hei Ming, Sehgal Himani, Neves Ana Luisa, Harmon Mark J, Majeed Azeem, Hayhoe Benedict
Global Digital Health Unit, Department for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
J Med Internet Res. 2025 May 21;27:e69528. doi: 10.2196/69528.
Emergency departments (EDs) globally face unprecedented pressures due to aging populations, multimorbidity, and staff shortages. In response, health systems are adopting technological solutions such as digital kiosks to reduce wait times, improve patient flow, and alleviate overcrowding. These tools can automate patient check-in and assist with triage, helping to reduce variability in assessments and identify individuals with urgent needs sooner. However, it remains unclear whether the potential time-saving benefits of these innovations translate into improved patient outcomes and safety.
This systematic review aims to summarize the safety and efficacy impacts of digital check-in and triage kiosks compared with traditional nurse-led triage methods in EDs.
Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. A narrative synthesis was carried out to evaluate the impact on patient safety (eg, agreement rate, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity) and efficacy (eg, operational efficiency and patient flow). The quality of the studies was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tools.
A total of 5 studies, comprising 47,778 patients and 310,249 ED visits, were included. Out of these 5 studies, 3 focused on self-check-in kiosks, one on self-triage kiosks, and another on technology combining both. Among 5 studies, 2 evaluated safety, reporting high sensitivity for predicting high-acuity outcomes (up to 88.5%) and low under-triage rates (8.0%-10.1%) but poor agreement with nurse-assigned triage scores (27.0%-30.7%). Specificity for low-acuity cases was variable, with one study reporting as low as 27.2% accuracy. Of the 5 studies, 4 examined efficacy, reporting high over-triage rates (59.2%-65.0%) and mixed impacts on waiting times. While 2 studies found significant reductions in time-to-physician and time-to-triage, others reported no significant improvements following adjustments. Kiosks demonstrated high usability, with one study reporting 97% uptake among ED attendees.
Evidence on the safety and efficacy of digital check-in and triage kiosks remains sparse. Based on the limited number of studies available, digital kiosks appear effective in accurately identifying high-acuity patients; however, their impact on operational efficiency measures is unclear. High over-triage rates and poor concordance with nurse-assigned triage scores may limit their practical application in busy ED settings. Further research is required to evaluate long-term outcomes, implementation across diverse health care contexts, and integration into ED workflows to better understand how digital kiosks can safely and effectively help address the growing demand for EDs.
PROSPERO CRD42024481506; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024481506.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084506.
由于人口老龄化、多种疾病并存以及人员短缺,全球急诊科面临前所未有的压力。作为应对措施,卫生系统正在采用数字信息亭等技术解决方案,以减少等待时间、改善患者流程并缓解过度拥挤的状况。这些工具可以实现患者登记自动化并协助进行分诊,有助于减少评估中的变异性,并更快地识别有紧急需求的患者。然而,这些创新在节省时间方面的潜在益处是否能转化为改善患者结局和安全性,仍不明确。
本系统评价旨在总结与急诊科传统护士主导的分诊方法相比,数字登记和分诊信息亭对安全性和有效性的影响。
在MEDLINE、EMBASE和科学网进行了全面检索。进行了叙述性综合分析,以评估对患者安全(如一致率、准确性、敏感性和特异性)和有效性(如运营效率和患者流程)的影响。使用美国国立心肺血液研究所的质量评估工具对研究质量进行评估。
共纳入5项研究,涉及47778名患者和310249次急诊科就诊。在这5项研究中,3项关注自助登记信息亭,1项关注自助分诊信息亭,另一项关注结合两者的技术。在5项研究中,2项评估了安全性,报告显示预测高急症结局的敏感性较高(高达88.5%),低分诊率较低(8.0%-10.1%),但与护士分配的分诊分数一致性较差(27.0%-30.7%)。低急症病例的特异性各不相同,一项研究报告准确性低至27.2%。在5项研究中,4项考察了有效性,报告显示高分诊率较高(59.2%-65.0%),对等待时间的影响不一。虽然2项研究发现医生接诊时间和分诊时间显著缩短,但其他研究报告调整后无显著改善。信息亭显示出较高的可用性,一项研究报告急诊科就诊者的使用率为97%。
关于数字登记和分诊信息亭安全性和有效性的证据仍然稀少。基于现有有限数量的研究,数字信息亭似乎能够有效准确地识别高急症患者;然而,它们对运营效率指标的影响尚不清楚。高分诊率和与护士分配的分诊分数一致性差可能会限制其在繁忙急诊科环境中的实际应用。需要进一步研究来评估长期结局、在不同医疗环境中的实施情况以及整合到急诊科工作流程中,以更好地了解数字信息亭如何能够安全有效地帮助应对急诊科日益增长的需求。
PROSPERO CRD42024481506;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024481506。
国际注册报告识别号(IRRID):RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2024-0845