Dataset Information

Differences in emergency nurse triage between a simulated setting and the real world, post hoc analysis of a cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

In 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.

Setting

ED of a general hospital and the adjacent GPC.

Participants

8038 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.

Results

An 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).

Conclusion

Nurses 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 number

NCT03793972.

SUBMITTER: Morreel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9252194 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundLow-dose analgesic methoxyflurane (Penthrox®) was approved in Europe for emergency relief of moderate to severe pain in conscious adults with trauma in 2015. A comparative post-authorisation safety study (PASS) was conducted to assess the risk of hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity with methoxyflurane during routine clinical practice.MethodsThis was a comparative hybrid prospective-retrospective cohort study. The comparative cohorts consisted of adults who were given methoxyflurane (methoxyflurane cohort) or another analgesic (concurrent cohort) routinely used for moderate to severe trauma and associated pain in the emergency setting (ambulance and Emergency Department) in the UK between December 2016 and November 2018. Hepatic and renal events were captured in the ensuing 12 weeks. A blinded clinical adjudication committee assessed events. A historical comparator cohort (non-concurrent cohort) was identified from patients with fractures in the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) accident and emergency database from November 2013 and November 2015 (before commercial launch of methoxyflurane). Hepatic and renal events were captured in the ensuing 12 weeks via linkage with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and HES hospital admissions databases.ResultsOverall, 1,236, 1,101 and 45,112 patients were analysed in the methoxyflurane, concurrent and non-concurrent comparator cohorts respectively. There was no significant difference in hepatic events between the methoxyflurane and concurrent cohorts (1.9% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.079) or between the methoxyflurane and non-concurrent cohorts (1.9% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.192). Renal events were significantly less common in the methoxyflurane cohort than in the concurrent cohort (2.3% vs. 5.6%, P < 0.001). For methoxyflurane versus non-concurrent cohort the lower occurrence of renal events (2.3% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.070) was not statistically significant. Multivariable adjustment did not change these associations.ConclusionsMethoxyflurane administration was not associated with an increased risk of hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity compared with other routinely administered analgesics and was associated with a reduced risk of nephrotoxicity compared with other routinely administered analgesics.Trial registrationStudy registered in the EU PAS Register (ENCEPP/SDPP/13040).

Project description:Background and purposeMultiple large trials have established the non-inferiority of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared to conventional fractionation. This study will determine real-world hypofractionation adoption across different geographic regions for breast, prostate, cervical cancer, and bone metastases, and identify barriers and facilitators to its use.Materials and methodsAn anonymous, electronic survey was distributed from January 2018 through January 2019 to radiation oncologists through the ESTRO-GIRO initiative. Predictors of hypofractionation were identified in univariable and multivariable regression analyses.Results2316 radiation oncologists responded. Hypofractionation was preferred in node-negative breast cancer following lumpectomy (82·2% vs. 46·7% for node-positive; p < 0.001), and in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (57·5% and 54·5%, respectively, versus 41·2% for high-risk (p < 0.001)). Hypofractionation was used in 32·3% of cervix cases in Africa, but <10% in other regions (p < 0.001). For palliative indications, hypofractionation was preferred by the majority of respondents. Lack of long-term data and concerns about local control and toxicity were the most commonly cited barriers. In adjusted analyses, hypofractionation was least common for curative indications amongst low- and lower-middle-income countries, Asia-Pacific, female respondents, small catchment areas, and in centres without access to intensity modulated radiotherapy.ConclusionSignificant variation was observed in hypofractionation across curative indications and between regions, with greater concordance in palliation. Using inadequate fractionation schedules may impede the delivery of affordable and accessible radiotherapy. Greater regionally-targeted and disease-specific education on evidence-based fractionation schedules is needed to improve utilization, along with best-case examples addressing practice barriers and supporting policy reform.