Validity of the Manchester Triage System in emergency patients receiving life-saving intervention or acute medical treatment-A prospective observational study in the emergency department.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The spectrum of cases seen by emergency departments ranges from minor illnesses or injuries to complex diseases with high mortality. Some patients require life-saving interventions (LSIs) or therapeutic treatment for an acute illness to prevent an expected imminent life-threatening condition immediately upon arrival. No published study has evaluated the validity of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in the context of immediate LSI or acute emergency treatment (AET). METHODS: The definition of LSI was based on a literature search. AET was defined by an expert panel based on current emergency guidelines and diagnostic guideline recommendations. In a 4-month observation period, an independent external observer documented all executed LSIs or AETs using a checklist. Sensitivity, negative predictive value, likelihood ratio negative (LR-), and accuracy of MTS triage level for the identification of patients receiving an LSI or AET were calculated. RESULTS: In 1762 patients, 40 (2.3%) LSIs and 89 (5.1%) AETs were observed. In the LSI group, sensitivity of MTS was 75.0%, negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.7%-99.6%), LR- was 0.303 (95% CI: 0.189-0.487) and accuracy (ACC) was 98.5% (95% CI: 97.8%-98.9%). In the AET group, sensitivity was 82.0%, NPV was 98.9% (95% CI: 98.1%-99.3%), LR- was 0.206 (95% CI: 0.132-0.322), and ACC was 86.5% (95% CI: 84.9%-88.1%). CONCLUSION: The MTS is a valid instrument for a first assessment of emergency patients in critical condition upon arrival.

Improvement of polytrauma management-quality inspection of a newly introduced course concept.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature search for training course concepts for care of severely injured and severely ill patients respecting improvement of process and outcome yielded little data. For several years, the University Hospital of Bonn has hosted a shock-room management course which, on the one hand, communicates human factor aspects and, on the other hand, pursues interdisciplinary and interprofessional team training. The Bonn shock-room management course (BSM-course®) differs from other courses in both format and principles. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of the structure of the course based on course evaluations of participants and its impact on the quality of the process and results for polytrauma care. METHODS: Single-center retrospective evaluation study (2011 to 2014). It was based on data from simulator training and records from the German Trauma Registry (DGU)®. RESULTS: Subjective evaluation of participants (n = 188) of the structure quality of Bonn's shock-room management course was overall positive. Objective measures of course participant performance also improved during simulation training (P = 0.012). An increasing number of trained employees also had a positive influence in reducing process time for shock-room care. Further, the course likewise had a positive impact on documentation quality (degree of completion), with regard to 4 relevant predictive parameters. Early mortality during the first 24 hours remained constant at 6.0-6.5% between 2011 and 2013, yet it decreased to 3.1% in 2014. CONCLUSION: The BSM-course® represents a symbiosis of horizontal team approach of trauma care and human factor training. The course format is able to ensure interdisciplinary and interprofessional team training with a high degree of efficiency. Furthermore, the presented work shows that a modern course concept can improve the quality of trauma care.

Validity of the Manchester Triage System in patients with sepsis presenting at the ED: a first assessment.

BACKGROUND: The Manchester Triage System (MTS) does not have a specific presentational flow chart for sepsis. The goal of this investigation was to determine adequacy of acuity assignment for patients with sepsis presenting at the ED and triaged using the MTS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients >16 presenting to an ED in Bonn, Germany, on the first 12 days of each month between June 2012 and March 2014. Patients were classified into one of three septic groups, or no sepsis. For those with sepsis, adequacy of acuity assignment was based on the criteria of the first consensus conference of the American College of Chest Physicians and Society of Critical Care Medicine, first published in 1992. Adequacy of prioritisation is expressed as sensitivity and likelihood ratio (LR-). RESULTS: Among 20 836 patients evaluated, 801 (3.8%) were septic; of these, 581 (72.5%) had sepsis, 194 (24.2%) had severe sepsis and 26 (3.2%) had severe sepsis with circulation dysfunction. Patients who met the criteria for sepsis were correctly prioritised with a sensitivity of 70.4% (95% CI 66.5 to 74.0). The LR- was 0.628 (95% CI 0.564 to 0.698). Patients with severe sepsis were appropriately prioritised with a sensitivity of 84.5% (95% CI 78.1 to 89.4), and LR- was 0.330 (95% CI 0.243 to 0.450). In the group with severe sepsis and circulation dysfunction, sensitivity of MTS was 61.5% (95% CI 39.3 to 79.8), and LR- was 0.466 (95% CI 0.286 to 0.757). CONCLUSIONS: The MTS has some weaknesses regarding priority levels in emergency patients with septic illness. Overall, target key symptoms (discriminators) which aim at identifying systemic infection and ascertaining vital parameters are insufficiently considered.

Nurse Staffing Calculation in the Emergency Department - Performance-Oriented Calculation Based on the Manchester Triage System at the University Hospital Bonn.

BACKGROUND: To date, there are no valid statistics regarding the number of full time staff necessary for nursing care in emergency departments in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Staff requirement calculations were performed using state-of-the art procedures which take both fluctuating patient volume and individual staff shortfall rates into consideration. In a longitudinal observational study, the average nursing staff engagement time per patient was assessed for 503 patients. For this purpose, a full-time staffing calculation was estimated based on the five priority levels of the Manchester Triage System (MTS), taking into account specific workload fluctuations (50th-95th percentiles). RESULTS: Patients classified to the MTS category red (n = 35) required the most engagement time with an average of 97.93 min per patient. On weighted average, for orange MTS category patients (n = 118), nursing staff were required for 85.07 min, for patients in the yellow MTS category (n = 181), 40.95 min, while the two MTS categories with the least acute patients, green (n = 129) and blue (n = 40) required 23.18 min and 14.99 min engagement time per patient, respectively. Individual staff shortfall due to sick days and vacation time was 20.87% of the total working hours. When extrapolating this to 21,899 (2010) emergency patients, 67-123 emergency patients (50-95% percentile) per month can be seen by one nurse. The calculated full time staffing requirement depending on the percentiles was 14.8 to 27.1. CONCLUSION: Performance-oriented staff planning offers an objective instrument for calculation of the full-time nursing staff required in emergency departments.

The German Version of the Manchester Triage System and its quality criteria--first assessment of validity and reliability.

BACKGROUND: The German Version of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) has found widespread use in EDs across German-speaking Europe. Studies about the quality criteria validity and reliability of the MTS currently only exist for the English-language version. Most importantly, the content of the German version differs from the English version with respect to presentation diagrams and change indicators, which have a significant impact on the category assigned. This investigation offers a preliminary assessment in terms of validity and inter-rater reliability of the German MTS. METHODS: Construct validity of assigned MTS level was assessed based on comparisons to hospitalization (general / intensive care), mortality, ED and hospital length of stay, level of prehospital care and number of invasive diagnostics. A sample of 45,469 patients was used. Inter-rater agreement between an expert and triage nurses (reliability) was calculated separately for a subset group of 167 emergency patients. RESULTS: For general hospital admission the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic was 0.749; for admission to ICU it was 0.871. An examination of MTS-level and number of deceased patients showed that the higher the priority derived from MTS, the higher the number of deaths (p<0.0001 / χ² Test). There was a substantial difference in the 30-day survival among the 5 MTS categories (p<0.0001 / log-rank test).The AUC for the predict 30-day mortality was 0.613. Categories orange and red had the highest numbers of heart catheter and endoscopy. Category red and orange were mostly accompanied by an emergency physician, whereas categories blue and green were walk-in patients. Inter-rater agreement between expert triage nurses was almost perfect (κ = 0.954). CONCLUSION: The German version of the MTS is a reliable and valid instrument for a first assessment of emergency patients in the emergency department.