ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: It is postulated that early determination of the need for admission can improve flow through EDs. There are several scoring systems which have been developed for predicting patient admission at triage, although they have not been directly compared. In addition, it is not known if these scoring systems perform better than clinical judgement. Therefore, the aim of this study was to validate existing tools in predicting hospital admission during triage and then compare them with the clinical judgement of triage nurses. METHODS: To conduct this prospective, single-centre observational study, we enrolled consecutive adult patients who presented between 30 September 2019 and 25 October 2019 at the ED of a large teaching hospital in Milan, Italy. For each patient, triage nurses recorded all of the variables needed to perform Ambulatory (AMB), Glasgow Admission Prediction (GAP) and Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) scoring. The probability of admission was estimated by the triage nurses using clinical judgement and expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100 with intervals of 5. Nurse estimates were dichotomised for analysis, with ≥50% likelihood being a prediction of admission. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated for accuracy of the predictions. Area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI for each of the scores and for the nursing judgements was also calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1710 patients (844 men; median age, 54 years (IQR: 34-75)) and 35 nurses (15 men; median age, 37 years (IQR: 33-48)) were included in this study. Among these patients, 310 (18%) were admitted to hospital from the ED. AUC values for AMB, GAP and START scores were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.79), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.75) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.64), respectively. The AUC for nurse clinical judgement was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84 to 0.89). CONCLUSION: AMB, GAP and START scores provided moderate accuracy in predicting patient admission. However, all of the scores were significantly worse than the clinical judgement of the triage nurses.
Subject(s)
Clinical Reasoning , Triage , Adult , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Patient Admission , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
. The prediction fo Hospitalization in triage: a comparison of instruments and methods of evaluation. A systematic revision. INTRODUCTION: Overcrowding in the emergency department causes called-boarding, in addition to the increase of the waiting times, high costs and unsatisfied patients. Boarded patients are those admitted to an inpatient unit in the hospital that continue to wait in the emergency department for a bed to become available. The adoption of tools and methods to help the clinician to predict the admission in the triage phase could significantly improve patients flow. AIM: To analyze and compare different tools and methods and to predict the hospitalization in the triage phase for adult patients. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by querying the PubMed and Cochrane databases, limited to the last 10 years articles. RESULTS: Ten longitudinal observational studies analyzed the variables associated with admission, predictive ability of the clinical judgment of the triage nurse, predictive ability of validated objective scores, and cross compared the various methods of predicting admission. The variable most associated with admission was advanced age; both the clinical judgment of the triage nurse and the various scores showed a good predictive ability; the association of the clinical judgment of the triage nurse with one of the scores would offer more accurate predictions. DISCUSSION: The ability to predict admission in the triage, through the use of validated scores and the clinical judgment of the triage nurse, could be the first step to reduce the boarding phenomenon and to improve the flow in the emergency department.
