Efficacy of the Crisis Risk Triage Scale in Inpatient Units Within the United States.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kathie S Zimbro, Ralitsa S Maduro, Patricia Ver Schneider, Donna S Hahn, James F Paulson, Merri K Morgan
{"title":"Efficacy of the Crisis Risk Triage Scale in Inpatient Units Within the United States.","authors":"Kathie S Zimbro,&nbsp;Ralitsa S Maduro,&nbsp;Patricia Ver Schneider,&nbsp;Donna S Hahn,&nbsp;James F Paulson,&nbsp;Merri K Morgan","doi":"10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Patient violence toward others, including doctors and nurses, is a serious concern worldwide. A wealth of literature supports the assertion that violent behavior can be prevented with proper screening and management policies. This project aimed to evaluate the Crisis Triage Rating Scale (CTRS) within a 12-hospital integrated healthcare delivery system located in the southeastern United States. An initial sample of 112,708 unique patient visits between January 2019 and December 2020 was included in this retrospective review of electronic health records. We found that the CTRS harm triage question and risk levels were significant predictors of harm to others. Consistent with previous literature, positive predictive values ranged between 0.025 and 0.070 and negative predictive values ranged between 0.991 and 0.995. Our results support the assertion that clinicians should make balanced judgments about using a positive risk score to allocate safety measures. Variations in practice were evident across our healthcare systems. Improving appropriate assessment procedures may improve the diagnostic tools and risk stratification. When documented correctly, the CTRS performed as expected in an environment where harm to others occurred infrequently.</p>","PeriodicalId":48801,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","volume":"45 1","pages":"51-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000349","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Patient violence toward others, including doctors and nurses, is a serious concern worldwide. A wealth of literature supports the assertion that violent behavior can be prevented with proper screening and management policies. This project aimed to evaluate the Crisis Triage Rating Scale (CTRS) within a 12-hospital integrated healthcare delivery system located in the southeastern United States. An initial sample of 112,708 unique patient visits between January 2019 and December 2020 was included in this retrospective review of electronic health records. We found that the CTRS harm triage question and risk levels were significant predictors of harm to others. Consistent with previous literature, positive predictive values ranged between 0.025 and 0.070 and negative predictive values ranged between 0.991 and 0.995. Our results support the assertion that clinicians should make balanced judgments about using a positive risk score to allocate safety measures. Variations in practice were evident across our healthcare systems. Improving appropriate assessment procedures may improve the diagnostic tools and risk stratification. When documented correctly, the CTRS performed as expected in an environment where harm to others occurred infrequently.

危机风险分诊量表在美国住院单位的有效性。
摘要:患者对他人的暴力行为,包括对医生和护士的暴力行为,在世界范围内都是一个严重的问题。大量文献支持这样一种说法,即通过适当的筛查和管理政策可以预防暴力行为。本项目旨在评估位于美国东南部的12家医院综合医疗保健服务系统中的危机分类评级量表(CTRS)。这项电子健康记录的回顾性审查纳入了2019年1月至2020年12月期间112,708例独特患者就诊的初始样本。我们发现CTRS伤害分类问题和风险水平是对他人伤害的显著预测因子。与既往文献一致,阳性预测值在0.025 ~ 0.070之间,阴性预测值在0.991 ~ 0.995之间。我们的研究结果支持临床医生在使用正风险评分来分配安全措施时应该做出平衡判断的主张。实践中的差异在我们的医疗系统中是显而易见的。改进适当的评估程序可以改进诊断工具和风险分层。当记录正确时,CTRS在不经常发生伤害他人的环境中按预期执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal for Healthcare Quality
Journal for Healthcare Quality HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Journal for Healthcare Quality (JHQ), a peer-reviewed journal, is an official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality. JHQ is a professional forum that continuously advances healthcare quality practice in diverse and changing environments, and is the first choice for creative and scientific solutions in the pursuit of healthcare quality. It has been selected for coverage in Thomson Reuter’s Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index®, and Current Contents®. The Journal publishes scholarly articles that are targeted to leaders of all healthcare settings, leveraging applied research and producing practical, timely and impactful evidence in healthcare system transformation. The journal covers topics such as: Quality Improvement • Patient Safety • Performance Measurement • Best Practices in Clinical and Operational Processes • Innovation • Leadership • Information Technology • Spreading Improvement • Sustaining Improvement • Cost Reduction • Payment Reform
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信