Dataset Information

Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE trial): A cluster randomised controlled trial

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine whether a new triage system safely diverts a proportion of emergency department (ED) patients to a general practitioner cooperative (GPC).

Methods

Unblinded randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was triage by a nurse using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System assigning low-risk patients to the GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment; it was not communicated during control weekends (all patients remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care patients (the opinion of the treating physician was the gold standard).

Results

In the intervention group, 838/6294 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC, in the control group this was 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In total, 599/6294 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the reason for encounter, age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) were referred back to the ED, three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised.

Conclusions

ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972

SUBMITTER: Morreel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8565772 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several triage systems have been developed, but little is known about their performance in low-resource settings. Evaluating and comparing novel triage systems to existing triage scales provides essential information about their added value, reliability, safety, and effectiveness before adoption. This study included children aged < 15 years who presented to the emergency departments of two public hospitals in Kenya between February and December 2021. We compared the performance of Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment (ETAT) guidelines and Smart Triage (ST) models (ST model with independent triggers, and recalibrated ST model with independent triggers) in categorizing children into emergency, priority, and non-urgent triage categories. Sankey diagrams were used to visualize the distribution of children into similar or different triage categories by ETAT and ST models. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values for mortality and admission were calculated. 5618 children were enrolled, and the majority (3113, 55.4%) were aged between one and five years of age. Overall admission and mortality rates were 7% and 0.9%, respectively. ETAT classified 513 (9.2%) children into the emergency category compared to 1163 (20.8%) and 1161 (20.7%) by the ST model with independent triggers and recalibrated model with independent triggers, respectively. ETAT categorized 3089 (55.1%) children as non-urgent compared to 2097 (37.4%) and 2617 (46.7%) for the respective ST models. ETAT classified 191/395 (48.4%) admitted patients as emergencies compared to more than half by all the ST models. ETAT and ST models classified 25/49 (51%) and 39/49 (79.6%) deceased children as emergencies. Sensitivity for admission and mortality was 48.4% and 51% for ETAT and 74.9% and 79.6% for the ST models, respectively. Smart Triage shows potential for identifying critically ill children in low-resource settings, particularly when combined with independent triggers and performs comparably to ETAT. Evaluation of Smart Triage in other contexts and comparison to other triage systems is required.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the TRIAGE trial, a cluster randomised trial about diverting emergency department (ED) patients to a general practice cooperative (GPC) using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System, the difference in the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC was striking: 13.3% in the intervention group (patients were encouraged to comply to an ED or GPC assignment, real-world setting) and 24.7% in the control group (the assignment was not communicated, all remained at the ED, simulated setting). In this secondary analysis, we assess the differences in the use of the triage tool between intervention and control group and differences in costs and hospitalisations for patients assigned to the GPC.SettingED of a general hospital and the adjacent GPC.Participants8038 patients (6294 intervention and 1744 control).Primary and secondary outcome measures proportion of patients with triage parameters (reason for encounter, discriminator and urgency category) leading to an assignment to the ED, proportion of patients for which the computer-generated GPC assignment was overruled, motivations for choosing certain parameters, costs (invoices) and hospitalisations.ResultsAn additional 3.1% (p<0.01) of the patients in the intervention group were classified as urgent. Discriminators leading to the ED were registered for an additional 16.2% (p<0.01), mainly because of a perceived need for imaging. Nurses equally chose flow charts leading to the ED (p=0.41) and equally overruled the protocol (p=0.91). In the intervention group, the mean cost for patients assigned to the GPC was €23 (p<0.01) lower and less patients with an assignment to the GPC were hospitalised (1.0% vs 1.6%, p<0.01).ConclusionNurses used a triage tool more risk averse when it was used to divert patients to primary care as compared with a theoretical assignment to primary care. Outcomes from a simulated setting should not be extrapolated to real patients.Trial registration numberNCT03793972.

Project description:Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) currently face inacceptable delays in initial treatment, and long, costly hospital stays due to suboptimal initial triage and site-of-care decisions. Accurate ED triage should focus not only on initial treatment priority, but also on prediction of medical risk and nursing needs to improve site-of-care decisions and to simplify early discharge management. Different triage scores have been proposed, such as the Manchester triage system (MTS). Yet, these scores focus only on treatment priority, have suboptimal performance and lack validation in the Swiss health care system. Because the MTS will be introduced into clinical routine at the Kantonsspital Aarau, we propose a large prospective cohort study to optimize initial patient triage. Specifically, the aim of this trial is to derive a three-part triage algorithm to better predict (a) treatment priority; (b) medical risk and thus need for in-hospital treatment; (c) post-acute care needs of patients at the most proximal time point of ED admission.Prospective, observational, multicenter, multi-national cohort study. We will include all consecutive medical patients seeking ED care into this observational registry. There will be no exclusions except for non-adult and non-medical patients. Vital signs will be recorded and left over blood samples will be stored for later batch analysis of blood markers. Upon ED admission, the post-acute care discharge score (PACD) will be recorded. Attending ED physicians will adjudicate triage priority based on all available results at the time of ED discharge to the medical ward. Patients will be reassessed daily during the hospital course for medical stability and readiness for discharge from the nurses and if involved social workers perspective. To assess outcomes, data from electronic medical records will be used and all patients will be contacted 30 days after hospital admission to assess vital and functional status, re-hospitalization, satisfaction with care and quality of life measures. We aim to include between 5000 and 7000 patients over one year of recruitment to derive the three-part triage algorithm. The respective main endpoints were defined as (a) initial triage priority (high vs. low priority) adjudicated by the attending ED physician at ED discharge, (b) adverse 30 day outcome (death or intensive care unit admission) within 30 days following ED admission to assess patients risk and thus need for in-hospital treatment and (c) post acute care needs after hospital discharge, defined as transfer of patients to a post-acute care institution, for early recognition and planning of post-acute care needs. Other outcomes are time to first physician contact, time to initiation of adequate medical therapy, time to social worker involvement, length of hospital stay, reasons for discharge delays, patient's satisfaction with care, overall hospital costs and patients care needs after returning home.Using a reliable initial triage system for estimating initial treatment priority, need for in-hospital treatment and post-acute care needs is an innovative and persuasive approach for a more targeted and efficient management of medical patients in the ED. The proposed interdisciplinary , multi-national project has unprecedented potential to improve initial triage decisions and optimize resource allocation to the sickest patients from admission to discharge. The algorithms derived in this study will be compared in a later randomized controlled trial against a usual care control group in terms of resource use, length of hospital stay, overall costs and patient's outcomes in terms of mortality, re-hospitalization, quality of life and satisfaction with care.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT01768494.

Project description:BackgroundFor several decades, emergency departments (EDs) utilization has increased, inducing ED overcrowding in many countries. This phenomenon is related partly to an excessive number of nonurgent patients. To resolve ED overcrowding and to decrease nonurgent visits, the most common solution has been to triage the ED patients to identify potentially nonurgent patients, i.e. which could have been dealt with by general practitioner. The objective of this study was to measure agreement among ED health professionals on the urgency of an ED visit, and to determine if the level of agreement is consistent among different sub-groups based on following explicit criteria: age, medical status, type of referral to the ED, investigations performed in the ED, and the discharge from the ED.MethodsWe conducted a multicentric cross-sectional study to compare agreement between nurses and physicians on categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent. Subgroups stratified by criteria characterizing the ED visit were analyzed in relation to the outcome of the visit.ResultsOf 1,928 ED patients, 350 were excluded because data were lacking. The overall nurse-physician agreement on categorization was moderate (kappa = 0.43). The levels of agreement within all subgroups were variable and low. The highest agreement concerned three subgroups of complaints: cranial injury (kappa = 0.61), gynaecological (kappa = 0.66) and toxicology complaints (kappa = 1.00). The lowest agreement concerned two subgroups: urinary-nephrology (kappa = 0.09) and hospitalization (kappa = 0.20). When categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent cases was compared to hospitalization, ED physicians had higher sensitivity and specificity than nurses (respectively 94.9% versus 89.5%, and 43.1% versus 30.9%).ConclusionsThe lack of physician-nurse agreement and the inability to predict hospitalization have important implications for patient safety. When urgency screening is used to determine treatment priority, disagreement might not matter because all patients in the ED are seen and treated. But using assessments as the basis for refusal of care to potential nonurgent patients raises legal, ethical, and safety issues. Managed care organizations should be cautious when applying such criteria to restrict access to EDs.

Project description:BackgroundOvercrowding in emergency departments is a worldwide problem. A systematic literature review was undertaken to scientifically explore which interventions improve patient flow in emergency departments.MethodsA systematic literature search for flow processes in emergency departments was followed by assessment of relevance and methodological quality of each individual study fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they did not present data on waiting time, length of stay, patients leaving the emergency department without being seen or other flow parameters based on a nonselected material of patients. Only studies with a control group, either in a randomized controlled trial or in an observational study with historical controls, were included. For each intervention, the level of scientific evidence was rated according to the GRADE system, launched by a WHO-supported working group.ResultsThe interventions were grouped into streaming, fast track, team triage, point-of-care testing (performing laboratory analysis in the emergency department), and nurse-requested x-ray. Thirty-three studies, including over 800,000 patients in total, were included. Scientific evidence on the effect of fast track on waiting time, length of stay, and left without being seen was moderately strong. The effect of team triage on left without being seen was relatively strong, but the evidence for all other interventions was limited or insufficient.ConclusionsIntroducing fast track for patients with less severe symptoms results in shorter waiting time, shorter length of stay, and fewer patients leaving without being seen. Team triage, with a physician in the team, will probably result in shorter waiting time and shorter length of stay and most likely in fewer patients leaving without being seen. There is only limited scientific evidence that streaming of patients into different tracks, performing laboratory analysis in the emergency department or having nurses to request certain x-rays results in shorter waiting time and length of stay.