Concordance between an artificial intelligence self-triage programme and physical triage.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Maaike Wempe, Frits Holleman, Michiel Schinkel, Michiel Gorzeman
{"title":"Concordance between an artificial intelligence self-triage programme and physical triage.","authors":"Maaike Wempe, Frits Holleman, Michiel Schinkel, Michiel Gorzeman","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2024-214212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the concordance between the Dutch National Triage Standard (NTS) triage classification and the triage of an artificial intelligence (AI) self-triage programme.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational comparative study was performed in the emergency departments (EDs) of two OLVG hospital locations in Amsterdam in October and November 2023. Adult patients who entered the ED without ambulance transport and were triaged using NTS (usual care), were asked to complete the digital AI triage programme. Cohen's kappa (ĸ), per cent agreement and the distribution across urgency categories were used to evaluate the concordance between the triage methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 264 patients approached, 203 consented to participation and were included in analysis and follow-up. Agreement between the triage methods was none to slight, ĸ=0.092 (95% CI -0.196 to 0.380). The AI triage programme overtriaged in 12.8% of cases and undertriaged in 5.4% compared with the NTS. However, the AI triage programme classified more patients with serious clinical sequelae into S1 (ie, emergency care with ambulance) and S2 (ie, emergency care) compared with NTS U1 and U2. The AI triage programme predicted the final diagnosis at ED discharge in 27.1% of the cases. There were significantly more clinical sequelae (eg, death, ward admission or follow-up consultation) for general practitioner referred patients compared with self-referrals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The AI triage appeared more distinctive in urgency classification than classic triage when considering clinical sequelae for the patient. However, refinements and better validation of AI triage programmes are needed before these can be implemented in healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"606-611"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13638276/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214212","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We evaluated the concordance between the Dutch National Triage Standard (NTS) triage classification and the triage of an artificial intelligence (AI) self-triage programme.

Methods: This observational comparative study was performed in the emergency departments (EDs) of two OLVG hospital locations in Amsterdam in October and November 2023. Adult patients who entered the ED without ambulance transport and were triaged using NTS (usual care), were asked to complete the digital AI triage programme. Cohen's kappa (ĸ), per cent agreement and the distribution across urgency categories were used to evaluate the concordance between the triage methods.

Results: Of the 264 patients approached, 203 consented to participation and were included in analysis and follow-up. Agreement between the triage methods was none to slight, ĸ=0.092 (95% CI -0.196 to 0.380). The AI triage programme overtriaged in 12.8% of cases and undertriaged in 5.4% compared with the NTS. However, the AI triage programme classified more patients with serious clinical sequelae into S1 (ie, emergency care with ambulance) and S2 (ie, emergency care) compared with NTS U1 and U2. The AI triage programme predicted the final diagnosis at ED discharge in 27.1% of the cases. There were significantly more clinical sequelae (eg, death, ward admission or follow-up consultation) for general practitioner referred patients compared with self-referrals.

Conclusion: The AI triage appeared more distinctive in urgency classification than classic triage when considering clinical sequelae for the patient. However, refinements and better validation of AI triage programmes are needed before these can be implemented in healthcare systems.

人工智能自我分类程序和物理分类程序之间的一致性。
目的:我们评估了荷兰国家分诊标准(NTS)分诊分类与人工智能(AI)自我分诊程序的分诊之间的一致性。方法:本观察性比较研究于2023年10月和11月在阿姆斯特丹两家OLVG医院的急诊科(EDs)进行。在没有救护车运输的情况下进入急诊科并使用NTS(常规护理)进行分诊的成年患者被要求完成数字人工智能分诊计划。科恩的kappa (),百分之协议和跨紧急类别的分布被用来评估分诊方法之间的一致性。结果:264例患者中,203例同意参与并纳入分析和随访。分类方法之间的一致性为无到轻微, =0.092 (95% CI -0.196至0.380)。与国家税务局相比,人工智能分诊计划有12.8%的病例分诊过多,5.4%的病例分诊不足。然而,与NTS U1和U2相比,AI分类程序将更多的严重临床后遗症患者分为S1(即救护车紧急护理)和S2(即紧急护理)。人工智能分类程序在27.1%的病例中预测了ED出院时的最终诊断。全科医生转诊患者的临床后遗症(如死亡、住院或随访)明显多于自我转诊患者。结论:在考虑患者的临床后遗症时,人工智能分诊在急症分类上比经典分诊更有特色。然而,在医疗保健系统中实施人工智能分类方案之前,需要对其进行改进和更好的验证。
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
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书