ABSTRACT
Background Social risk is rarely evaluated in older emergency department (ED) patients, although its identification can reduce re-attendance. Objectives This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST) in the ED of a developing country. Methods The diagnostic accuracy of the TRST to detect elderly adults in need of social service intervention was compared with routine clinical evaluation, using comprehensive evaluation by an experienced social worker as the "gold standard". The inter-rater reliability of the TRST was assessed on a separate cohort of patients prior to the main study. Results The sensitivity of the TRST was 94.7% versus 55.6% for physician assessment. The TRST had good inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa = .882), and physicians found it easy to use. Conclusion The TRST provides a rapid means of assessing risk in older ED patients. This study confirmed the validity of this screening tool in a third world setting.
Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Social Work/organization & administration , Triage/methods , Aged , Developing Countries , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Psychology , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Social Workers/psychology , Triage/statistics & numerical data , Trinidad and TobagoABSTRACT
We studied the accuracy of marking surgical margins for excision surrounding skin lesions, to assess if the percentage error would differ for varying increments in margin measurements. In designing an experiment to test this hypothesis, surgeons of differing experience (n=19) marked excision margins of 2, 5 and 10 mm around a standard circular lesion drawn on paper. Use of surgical markers, rulers and loupe magnification were all permitted, with five attempts for each margin. The percentage error found was 35, 14 and 4% for the 2, 5 and 10 mm margins, respectively (regardless of the grade of surgeon). Repetition of the experiment on volunteer skin demonstrated a percentage error of 45, 16 and 8% for 2, 5 and 10 mm margins (significantly greater than the corresponding errors on paper, p<0.001 in all cases). These findings indicate that for these surgically marked margins, the term "accurate excision margins" may be inaccurate to a significant degree. This study has defined the errors inherent in the marking of surgical margins, and these should be taken into account when assessing studies that report margins around tumours. Specifically, comparisons between surgical and histological margins would aid assessment of reports detailing surgical margins dawn around skin tumours.
