Accuracy and Reliability of Emergency Department Triage Using the Emergency Severity Index: An International Multicenter Assessment.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess accuracy and variability of triage score assignment by emergency department (ED) nurses using the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) in 3 countries. In accordance with previous reports and clinical observation, we hypothesize low accuracy and high variability across all sites. METHODS: This cross-sectional multicenter study enrolled 87 ESI-trained nurses from EDs in Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Standardized triage scenarios published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) were used. Accuracy was defined by concordance with the AHRQ key and calculated as percentages. Accuracy comparisons were made with one-way ANOVA and paired t test. Interrater reliability was measured with Krippendorff's α. Subanalyses based on nursing experience and triage scenario type were also performed. RESULTS: Mean accuracy pooled across all sites and scenarios was 59.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.4% to 62.0%) and interrater reliability was modest (α=.730; 95% CI .692 to .767). There was no difference in overall accuracy between sites or according to nurse experience. Medium-acuity scenarios were scored with greater accuracy (76.4%; 95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%) than high- or low-acuity cases (44.1%, 95% CI 39.3% to 49.0% and 54%, 95% CI 49.9% to 58.2%), and adult scenarios were scored with greater accuracy than pediatric ones (66.2%, 95% CI 62.9% to 69.7% versus 46.9%, 95% CI 43.4% to 50.3%). CONCLUSION: In this multinational study, concordance of nurse-assigned ESI score with reference standard was universally poor and variability was high. Although the ESI is the most popular ED triage tool in the United States and is increasingly used worldwide, our findings point to a need for more reliable ED triage tools.

Nursing Perceptions of the Emergency Severity Index as a Triage Tool in the United Arab Emirates: A Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: With emergency department crowding becoming an increasing problem across the globe, nursing triage to prioritize patients receiving care is ever more important. ESI is the most common triage system used in the United States and is increasingly used worldwide. This qualitative study that explores emergency nursing perceptions of the ESI identifies strengths, weaknesses, and barriers to implementation of the ESI internationally. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews of 27 emergency triage nurses. Content analysis was performed by 2 independent coders, using NVivo software to identify and analyze important themes. RESULTS: Interview coding revealed 7 core themes related to use of the ESI (frequencies indicated in parentheses): ease of use (90), speed and efficiency (135), patient safety (12), accuracy and reliability (30), challenging patient characteristics (123), subjectivity and variability (173), and effect of triage system on team dynamics (100). Intercoder agreement was excellent (Cohen's unweighted kappa = 0.84). Subjectivity and variability in ESI score assignment consistently emerged in all interviews and included variability in number and use of resources, definition of "high risk," nursing experience, and subjectivity in pain assessment. DISCUSSION: Although emergency nurses perceive the ESI as easy to use, there are concerns about the subjectivity and variability inherent in the ESI that can lead to a functional lack of triage and a burden of undifferentiated ESI level 3 patients. These limitations in separating critically ill patients and in stratifying patients based on anticipated required resources points to the need for improvement in the ESI algorithm or a more objective triage system that can predict patient outcomes.

Using the Electronic Medical Record to Reduce Unnecessary Ordering of Coagulation Studies for Patients with Chest Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to reduce ordering of coagulation studies in the emergency department (ED) that have no added value for patients presenting with chest pain. We hypothesized this could be achieved via implementation of a stopgap measure in the electronic medical record (EMR). METHODS: We used a pre and post quasi-experimental study design to evaluate the impact of an EMR-based intervention on coagulation study ordering for patients with chest pain. A simple interactive prompt was incorporated into the EMR of our ED that required clinicians to indicate whether patients were on anticoagulation therapy prior to completion of orders for coagulation studies. Coagulation order frequency was measured via detailed review of randomly sampled encounters during two-month periods before and after intervention. We classified existing orders as clinically indicated or non-value added. Order frequencies were calculated as percentages, and we assessed differences between groups by chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Pre-intervention, 73.8% (76/103) of patients with chest pain had coagulation studies ordered, of which 67.1% (51/76) were non-value added. Post-intervention, 38.5% (40/104) of patients with chest pain had coagulation studies ordered, of which 60% (24/40) were non-value added. There was an absolute reduction of 35.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.7%, 48.0%) in the total ordering of coagulation studies and 26.4% (95% CI: 13.8%, 39.0%) in non-value added order placement. CONCLUSION: Simple EMR-based interactive prompts can serve as effective deterrents to indiscriminate ordering of diagnostic studies.

The association between headache and elevated blood pressure among patients presenting to an ED.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure (BP) and headache have long been linked in the medical literature, although data on association are conflicting. We used previously collected data to address these related aims: (1) using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we determined whether elevated BP is more likely in patients who present to an emergency department (ED) with headache than in patients who present with other complaints; (2) using data collected in 3 ED-based migraine clinical trials, we determined the association between improvement in headache pain and improvement in BP among patients who present to an ED with migraine and elevated BP; (3) using the data from the migraine clinical trials, we also determined if an elevated baseline BP identifies a group of patients less likely to respond to standard migraine treatment. METHODS: We analyzed 2 distinct data sets. The first, NHAMCS, is a national probability sample of all US ED visits. The second is a compilation of data gathered during 3 ED-based migraine randomized controlled trials. We defined elevated BP as follows: moderate elevation-systolic BP (SBP) ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥95 mm Hg; marked elevation-SBP ≥165 mm Hg or DBP ≥100 mm Hg; and severe elevation-SBP ≥180 mm Hg or DBP ≥110 mm Hg. We report the association between headache and elevated BP in NHAMCS using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We report the correlation coefficient and r(2) for the association between improvement in BP and improvement in headache pain in our clinical trials data set. Finally, using our clinical trials database, we determined the influence of elevated BP at baseline on response to migraine medication by constructing a linear regression model in which the dependent variable was improvement in 0 to 10 pain score between baseline and 1 hour, and the primary predictor variable was presence or absence of elevated BP at baseline. RESULTS: Headache was the primary complaint in 3.7% (95% CI, 3.4-4.0%) of all US ED visits, corresponding to 4.8 million (95% CI, 4.2-5.4 million) patient visits. Among US ED patients, those with headache were more likely than patients with other chief complaints to have markedly (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.61) or severely elevated BP (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.17-1.90). In our clinical trials data set of patients with migraine with moderately elevated BP, there was no correlation between improvement in pain score and improvement in SBP (r = -0.07, r(2) = 0, P = .465) or DBP (r = -0.03, r(2) = 0, P = .75). Similarly, there was no correlation between improvement in headache and improvement in BP among patients with migraine with markedly elevated BP (for SBP, r = -0.19, r(2) = 0.04, P = .89; for DBP, r = -0.02, r(2) = 0, P = .87), nor among patients with severely elevated BP (for SBP, r = 0.06, r(2) = 0, P = .81; for DBP, r = 0.03, r(2) = 0, P = .90). Patients with moderately elevated BP had slightly less improvement in their 0 to 10 pain score than patients with BPs below this cutoff (-0.6; 95% CI, -1.2 to -0.1; P = .03). This was more pronounced among patients with markedly elevated BP (-0.9; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is an association between elevated BP and headache among patients presenting to an ED, improvement in headache is not associated with improvement in BP.