Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Development of outcomes for evaluating emergency care triage : a Delphi approach

Johansson, André LU orcid ; Ekwall, Anna LU ; Forberg, Jakob Lundager LU and Ekelund, Ulf LU orcid (2023) In Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine 31(1).
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Triage is used as standard of care for prioritization and identification of time-critical patients in the emergency department (ED) globally, but it is unclear what outcomes should be used to evaluate triage. Currently used outcomes do not include important time-critical diagnoses and conditions.

METHOD: We used 18 Swedish triage experts to collect and assess outcomes for the evaluation of 5-level triage systems. The experts suggested 68 outcomes which were then tested through a modified Delphi approach in three rounds. The outcomes aimed to identify correctly prioritized red patients (in need of a resuscitation team), and orange patients (other time critical conditions). Consensus was pre-defined as 70% dichotomized... (More)

BACKGROUND: Triage is used as standard of care for prioritization and identification of time-critical patients in the emergency department (ED) globally, but it is unclear what outcomes should be used to evaluate triage. Currently used outcomes do not include important time-critical diagnoses and conditions.

METHOD: We used 18 Swedish triage experts to collect and assess outcomes for the evaluation of 5-level triage systems. The experts suggested 68 outcomes which were then tested through a modified Delphi approach in three rounds. The outcomes aimed to identify correctly prioritized red patients (in need of a resuscitation team), and orange patients (other time critical conditions). Consensus was pre-defined as 70% dichotomized (positive/negative) concordance.

RESULTS: Diagnoses, interventions, mortality, level of care and lab results were included in the outcomes. Positive consensus was reached for 49 outcomes and negative consensus for 7 outcomes, with an 83% response rate. The five most approved outcomes were the interventions Percutaneous coronary intervention, Surgical airway and Massive transfusion together with the diagnoses Tension pneumothorax and Intracerebral hemorrhage that received specific interventions. The outcomes with the clearest disapproval included Admittance to a ward, Treatment with antihistamines and The ordering of a head computed tomography scan. The outcomes were considered valid only if occurring in or from the ED.

CONCLUSION: This study proposes a standard of 49 outcomes divided into two sets tied to red and orange priority respectively, to be used when evaluating 5-level priority triage systems; Lund Outcome Set for Evaluation of Triage (LOSET). The proposed outcomes include diagnoses, interventions and laboratory results. Before widespread implementation of LOSET, prospective testing is needed, preferably at multiple sites.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Humans, Triage/methods, Prospective Studies, Emergency Medical Services/methods, Emergency Service, Hospital, Emergency Treatment, Delphi Technique
in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
volume
31
issue
1
article number
10
publisher
BioMed Central (BMC)
external identifiers
  • scopus:85149020259
  • pmid:36841783
ISSN
1757-7241
DOI
10.1186/s13049-023-01073-1
project
AIR Lund - Artificially Intelligent use of Registers
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
7fc4462a-07c8-4e80-a3fa-fb3522ef1fac
date added to LUP
2023-03-13 13:07:00
date last changed
2024-06-14 00:32:11
@article{7fc4462a-07c8-4e80-a3fa-fb3522ef1fac,
  abstract     = {{<p>BACKGROUND: Triage is used as standard of care for prioritization and identification of time-critical patients in the emergency department (ED) globally, but it is unclear what outcomes should be used to evaluate triage. Currently used outcomes do not include important time-critical diagnoses and conditions.</p><p>METHOD: We used 18 Swedish triage experts to collect and assess outcomes for the evaluation of 5-level triage systems. The experts suggested 68 outcomes which were then tested through a modified Delphi approach in three rounds. The outcomes aimed to identify correctly prioritized red patients (in need of a resuscitation team), and orange patients (other time critical conditions). Consensus was pre-defined as 70% dichotomized (positive/negative) concordance.</p><p>RESULTS: Diagnoses, interventions, mortality, level of care and lab results were included in the outcomes. Positive consensus was reached for 49 outcomes and negative consensus for 7 outcomes, with an 83% response rate. The five most approved outcomes were the interventions Percutaneous coronary intervention, Surgical airway and Massive transfusion together with the diagnoses Tension pneumothorax and Intracerebral hemorrhage that received specific interventions. The outcomes with the clearest disapproval included Admittance to a ward, Treatment with antihistamines and The ordering of a head computed tomography scan. The outcomes were considered valid only if occurring in or from the ED.</p><p>CONCLUSION: This study proposes a standard of 49 outcomes divided into two sets tied to red and orange priority respectively, to be used when evaluating 5-level priority triage systems; Lund Outcome Set for Evaluation of Triage (LOSET). The proposed outcomes include diagnoses, interventions and laboratory results. Before widespread implementation of LOSET, prospective testing is needed, preferably at multiple sites.</p>}},
  author       = {{Johansson, André and Ekwall, Anna and Forberg, Jakob Lundager and Ekelund, Ulf}},
  issn         = {{1757-7241}},
  keywords     = {{Humans; Triage/methods; Prospective Studies; Emergency Medical Services/methods; Emergency Service, Hospital; Emergency Treatment; Delphi Technique}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{02}},
  number       = {{1}},
  publisher    = {{BioMed Central (BMC)}},
  series       = {{Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine}},
  title        = {{Development of outcomes for evaluating emergency care triage : a Delphi approach}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-023-01073-1}},
  doi          = {{10.1186/s13049-023-01073-1}},
  volume       = {{31}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}