Dataset Information

Nurse-led triage of new sleep referrals is associated with lower risk of potentially contraindicated sleep testing: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The volume of specialty care referrals often outstrips specialists' capacity. The Department of Veterans Affairs launched a system of referral coordination to augment our workforce, empowering registered nurses to use decision support tools to triage specialty referrals. While task shifting may improve access, there is limited evidence regarding the relative quality of nurses' triage decisions to ensure such management is safe.

Objective

Within the specialty of sleep medicine, we compared receipt of contraindicated testing for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) between patients triaged to sleep testing by nurses in the referral coordination system (RCS) relative to our traditional specialist-led system (TSS).

Methods

Patients referred for OSA evaluation can be triaged to either home sleep apnoea testing (HSAT) or polysomnography, and existing guidelines specify patients for whom HSAT is contraindicated. In RCS, nurses used a decision support tool to make triage decisions for sleep testing but were instructed to seek specialist oversight in complex cases. In TSS, specialists made triage decisions themselves. We performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study of patients without OSA who were referred to sleep testing between September 2018 and August 2019. Patients were assigned to triage by RCS or TSS in quasirandom fashion based on triager availability at time of referral. We compared receipt of contraindicated sleep tests between groups using a generalised linear model adjusted for day of the week and time of day of referral.

Results

RCS triaged 793 referrals for OSA evaluation relative to 1787 by TSS. Patients with RCS triages were at lower risk of receiving potentially contraindicated sleep tests relative risk 0.52 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.93).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that incorporating registered nurses into triage decision-making may improve the quality of diagnostic care for OSA.

SUBMITTER: Donovan LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315816 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare doctors' and nurses' communication with patients in primary care telephone triage consultations.DesignQualitative comparative study of content and form of questions in 51 telephone triage encounters between practitioners (general practitioners (GPs)=29; nurses=22) and patients requesting a same-day appointment in primary care. Audio-recordings of nurse-led calls were synchronised with video recordings of nurse's use of computer decision support software (CDSS) during triage.Setting2 GP practices in Devon and Warwickshire, UK.Participants4 GPs and 29 patients; and 4 nurses and 22 patients requesting a same-day face-to-face appointment with a GP.Main outcome measureForm and content of practitioner-initiated questions and patient responses during clinical assessment.ResultsA total of 484 question-response sequences were coded (160 GP; 324 N). Despite average call lengths being similar (GP=4 min, 37 s, (SD=1 min, 26 s); N=4 min, 39 s, (SD=2 min, 22 s)), GPs and nurses differed in the average number (GP=5.51, (SD=4.66); N=14.72, (SD=6.42)), content and form of questions asked. A higher frequency of questioning in nurse-led triage was found to be due to nurses' use of CDSS to guide telephone triage. 89% of nurse questions were oriented to asking patients about their reported symptoms or to wider-information gathering, compared to 54% of GP questions. 43% of GP questions involved eliciting patient concerns or expectations, and obtaining details of medical history, compared to 11% of nurse questions. Nurses using CDSS frequently delivered questions designed as declarative statements requesting confirmation and which typically preferred a 'no problem' response. In contrast, GPs asked a higher proportion of interrogative questions designed to request information.ConclusionsNurses and GPs emphasise different aspects of the clinical assessment process during telephone triage. These different styles of triage have implications for the type of information available following nurse-led or doctor-led triage, and for how patients experience triage.

Project description:ObjectivesOut-of-hours (OOH) telephone triage is used to manage patient flow, but knowledge of the communicative skills of telephone triagists is limited. The aims of this study were to compare communicative parameters in general practitioner (GP)-led and nurse-led OOH telephone triage and to discuss differences in relation to patient-centred communication and safety issues.DesignObservational study.SettingTwo Danish OOH settings: a large-scale general practitioner cooperative in the Central Denmark Region (n=100 GP-led triage conversations) and Medical Helpline 1813 in the Capital Region of Denmark (n=100 nurse-led triage conversations with use of a clinical decision support system).Participants200 audio-recorded telephone triage conversations randomly selected.Primary and secondary outcome measuresConversations were compared with regard to length of call, distribution of speaking time, question types, callers' expression of negative affect, and nurses' and GPs' responses to callers' negative affectivity using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Student's t-test.ResultsCompared with GPs, nurses had longer telephone contacts (137s vs 264 s, p=0.001) and asked significantly more questions (5 vs 9 questions, p=0.001). In 36% of nurse-led triage conversations, triage nurses either transferred the call to a physician or had to confer the call with a physician. Nurses gave the callers significantly more spontaneous talking time than GPs (23.4s vs 17.9 s, p=0.01). Compared with nurses, GPs seemed more likely to give an emphatic response when a caller spontaneously expressed concern; however, this difference was not statistically significant (36% vs 29%, p=0.6).ConclusionsWhen comparing communicative parameters in GP-led and nurse-led triage, several differences were observed. However, the impact of these differences in the perspective of patient-centred communication and safety needs further research. More knowledge is needed to determine what characterises good quality in telephone triage communication.

Project description:IntroductionCanadian 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsSelf-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.

Project description:In some jurisdictions, routine reporting of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has led to an increase in nephrology referrals and wait times.We describe the use of the Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) as part of a triage process for new nephrology referrals for patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3 to 5 in a Canadian province.A quasi-experimental study design was used.This study took place in Manitoba, Canada.Demographics, laboratory values, referral numbers, and wait times were compared between periods.In 2012, we adopted a risk-based cutoff of 3% over 5 years using the KFRE as a threshold for triage of new referrals. Referrals who did not meet other prespecified criteria (such as pregnancy, suspected glomerulonephritis, etc) and had a kidney failure risk of <3% over 5 years were returned to primary care with recommendations based on diabetes and hypertension guidelines. The average wait time and number of consults seen between the pretriage (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011) and posttriage period (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2013) were compared using a general linear model.In the pretriage period, the median number of referrals was 68/month (range: 44-76); this increased to 94/month (range: 61-147) in the posttriage period. In the posttriage period, 35% of referrals were booked as urgent, 31% as nonurgent, and 34% of referrals were not booked. The median wait times improved from 230 days (range: 126-355) in the pretriage period to 58 days (range: 48-69) in the posttriage period.We do not have long-term follow-up on patients triaged as low risk. Our study may not be applicable to nephrology teams operating under capacity without wait lists. We did not collect detailed information on all referrals in the pretriage period, so any differences in our pretriage and posttriage patient groups may be unaccounted for.Our risk-based triage scheme is an effective health policy tool that led to improved wait times and access to care for patients at highest risk of progression to kidney failure.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether community-based nurse-led continence care interventions are effective in improving outcomes for adult Chinese primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).Research design and subjectsA case-controlled intervention study was conducted. An intervention group of 360 primary care patients enrolled into a nurse-led continence care programme were recruited by consecutive sampling. A control group of 360 primary care patients with LUTS identified by screening were recruited from the waiting rooms of primary care clinics by consecutive sampling. Both groups were monitored at baseline and at 12 months.MeasuresOutcome measures included symptom severity, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), self-efficacy, global health and self-reported health service utilization at 12-months. The effect of the continence care programme on symptom severity and HRQOL was assessed by the difference-in-difference estimation, using independent t-test and multiple liner regression. Chi-square test was used to compare the self-efficacy, global health and self-reported health service utilization between the two groups at 12-months.ResultsAfter adjusting for baseline severity and socio-demographics, the intervention group had significant improvements in LUTS severity (P<0.05) and HRQOL (P<0.05). Improvements in the amount of urine leakage were not significantly different between the two groups. A higher proportion of subjects in the intervention group reported increased self-efficacy (43.48% vs. 66.83%), improved global health condition (17.74% vs. 41.5%), having doctor consultation (18.5% vs. 8.06), having medication due to LUTS (26.50% vs.11.29%) and having non-drug therapy due to LUTS (59.5% vs.9.68%).ConclusionsCommunity-based nurse-led continence care can effectively alleviate symptoms, improve health-related quality of life, and enhance self-efficacy and the global health condition of Chinese male and female primary care patients with LUTS.