Modern triage in the emergency department.
BACKGROUND
Because the volume of patient admissions to an emergency department (ED) cannot be precisely planned, the available resources may become overwhelmed at times ("crowding"), with resulting risks for patient safety. The aim of this study is to identify modern triage instruments and assess their validity and reliability.


METHODS
Review of selected literature retrieved by a search on the terms "emergency department" and "triage."


RESULTS
Emergency departments around the world use different triage systems to assess the severity of incoming patients' conditions and assign treatment priorities. Our study identified four such instruments: the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS), the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), the Manchester Triage System (MTS), and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Triage instruments with 5 levels are superior to those with 3 levels in both validity and reliability (p<0.01). Good to very good reliability has been shown for the best-studied instruments, CTAS and ESI (κ-statistics: 0.7 to 0.95), while ATS and MTS have been found to be only moderately reliable (κ-statistics: 0.3 to 0.6). MTS and ESI are both available in German; of these two, only the ESI has been validated in German-speaking countries.


CONCLUSIONS
Five-level triage systems are valid and reliable methods for assessment of the severity of incoming patients' conditions by nursing staff in the emergency department. They should be used in German emergency departments to assign treatment priorities in a structured and dependable fashion.
Interdisziplinäre Notaufnahmen, Klinikum Nürnberg, Germany. michael.christ@klinikum-nuernberg.de
Michael
M
Christ
Florian
F
Grossmann
Daniela
D
Winter
Roland
R
Bingisser
Elke
E
Platz
D020000:Decision Support Systems, Clinical / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005858:Germany; D014218:Triage / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends*
J Emerg Nurs. 2004 Feb;30(1):22-9
14765078
Emerg Med J. 2008 Jul;25(7):431-4
18573959
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Oct;32(4):431-5
9774926
J Accid Emerg Med. 1999 May;16(3):179-81
10353042
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Oct;10(10):1070-80
14525740
CJEM. 2002 Jan;4(1):16-22
17637144
Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Feb;49(2):234-40
17141145
Acad Emerg Med. 2005 Mar;12(3):219-24
15741584
Emerg Med J. 2006 Dec;23(12):906-10
17130595
Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2009 Jan-Feb;28(1):9-12
19104244
CJEM. 2008 May;10(3):224-43
19019273
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jun;59(6):615-21
16713524
J Formos Med Assoc. 2006 Aug;105(8):617-25
16935762
Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2003 Aug;15(4):334-40
14631700
CJEM. 2008 Mar;10(2):136-51
18371252
Emerg Med J. 2006 Nov;23(11):841-5
17057134
Emerg Med Australas. 2008 Dec;20(6):468-74
19125824
Emerg Med J. 2007 Jul;24(7):477-9
17582037
J Emerg Nurs. 2005 Feb;31(1):39-50; quiz 118
15682128
Eur J Emerg Med. 2001 Mar;8(1):3-7
11314818
Scand J Caring Sci. 2005 Dec;19(4):432-8
16324070
CJEM. 2003 Sep;5(5):323-9
17466140
Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Oct;14(10):864-9
17761546
Eur J Emerg Med. 2007 Aug;14(4):188-92
17620907
CJEM. 2003 Sep;5(5):315-22
17466139
BMJ. 2008 Sep 22;337:a1501
18809587
Am J Emerg Med. 2008 Oct;26(8):893-7
18926347
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004 Aug;20(8):514-8
15295246
Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Jan;14(1):16-21
17200513
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Nov;44(5):516-23
15520712
Acad Emerg Med. 2000 Mar;7(3):236-42
10730830
Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Aug;34(2):155-9
10424915
Natl Health Stat Report. 2008 Aug 6;(7):1-38
18958996
CJEM. 2007 Jul;9(4):260-6
17626690
Emerg Med J. 2008 Jul;25(7):398-402
18573947
Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Jan;8(1):61-4
11136151
Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Feb;8(2):170-6
11157294
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;11(1):59-65
14709429
J Accid Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;16(5):322-4
10505909
Emerg Med J. 2007 Mar;24(3):170-4
17351220
Anaesthesist. 2009 Feb;58(2):163-70
19082988
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Dec;15(12):1262-7
18945238
CJEM. 2004 Jul;6(4):240-5
17381999
J Emerg Nurs. 2002 Oct;28(5):395-400
12386619
Emerg Med Australas. 2004 Feb;16(1):41-6
15239754
Emerg Nurse. 2003 Sep;11(5):19-21
14533295