Performance of the rapid triage conducted by nurses at the emergency entrance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3467.3378Keywords:
Triage, Patient Acuity, Emergencies, Emergency Medical Services, Nursing, EfficiencyAbstract
Objective: to compare the performance of the rapid triage conducted by nurses at the emergency entrance and of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in identifying the priority level of care for patients with spontaneous demand and predicting variables related to hospitalization. Method: a cross-sectional study carried out in an Emergency Department (ED) of a university hospital in São Paulo. The priority levels established in the rapid triage performed by nurses were high priority (patients of spontaneous demand directed to the emergency room) or low priority (those referred to the institution’s usual flow). Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated to assess the performance of the indexes. Results: of the 173 patients (52.0% female, with mean age of 60.4 ± 21.2 years old) evaluated, it was observed that rapid triage was more inclusive for high priority and had better sensitivity and worse specificity than the MTS. The probability of non-severe patients being admitted to the emergency observation unit was lower due to the rapid triage. For the prediction of the other variables, the systems presented unsatisfactory results. Conclusion: the nurses overestimated the classification of patients as high priority, and rapid triage performed better than MTS in predicting admission to the emergency observation unit.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b67b2/b67b296c4d3b028c918eaf7bf864d9ab589a7b44" alt="Creative Commons License"
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.