Validity and reliability of the triage scale in older people in a regional emergency department in Hong Kong

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
K. Cheung, L. Leung
{"title":"Validity and reliability of the triage scale in older people in a regional emergency department in Hong Kong","authors":"K. Cheung, L. Leung","doi":"10.1177/1024907920971633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Older people (⩾65 years) present a unique challenge in emergency department triage. Hong Kong’s Hospital Authority adopts a five-level emergency department triage system, with no special considerations for older people. We evaluated the validity and reliability of this triage scale in older people in a regional Hong Kong emergency department. Methods: In total, 295 cases stratified by triage category were randomly selected for review from November 2016 to January 2017. Validity was established by comparing the real emergency department patients’ triage category against (1) that of an expert panel and (2) the need for life-saving intervention. Triage notes were extracted to make case scenarios to evaluate inter- and intra-rater reliabilities. Emergency department nurses (n = 8) were randomly selected and grouped into <5 and ⩾5 years emergency department experience. All nurses independently rated all 295 scenarios, blinded to clinical outcomes. Results: The percentage agreement between the real emergency department patients’ triage category and the expert panel’s assignment was 68.5%, with 16.3% and 15.3% over-triage and under-triage, respectively. Quadratic weighting kappa for agreement with the expert panel was 0.72 (95% confidence interval: 0.53–0.91). The sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio for the need for life-saving interventions were 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 47.6%–92.7%), 97.1% (95% confidence interval: 94.4%–98.8%) and 26.2 (95% confidence interval: 12.5%–54.8%), respectively. The Fleiss kappa value for inter-rater reliability was 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.47–0.54) for junior and senior nurse groups, respectively. Conclusion: The current triage scale demonstrates reasonable validity and reliability for use in our older people. Considerations highlighting the unique characteristics of older people emergency department presentations are recommended.","PeriodicalId":50401,"journal":{"name":"Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"28 1","pages":"65 - 71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1024907920971633","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1024907920971633","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Older people (⩾65 years) present a unique challenge in emergency department triage. Hong Kong’s Hospital Authority adopts a five-level emergency department triage system, with no special considerations for older people. We evaluated the validity and reliability of this triage scale in older people in a regional Hong Kong emergency department. Methods: In total, 295 cases stratified by triage category were randomly selected for review from November 2016 to January 2017. Validity was established by comparing the real emergency department patients’ triage category against (1) that of an expert panel and (2) the need for life-saving intervention. Triage notes were extracted to make case scenarios to evaluate inter- and intra-rater reliabilities. Emergency department nurses (n = 8) were randomly selected and grouped into <5 and ⩾5 years emergency department experience. All nurses independently rated all 295 scenarios, blinded to clinical outcomes. Results: The percentage agreement between the real emergency department patients’ triage category and the expert panel’s assignment was 68.5%, with 16.3% and 15.3% over-triage and under-triage, respectively. Quadratic weighting kappa for agreement with the expert panel was 0.72 (95% confidence interval: 0.53–0.91). The sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio for the need for life-saving interventions were 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 47.6%–92.7%), 97.1% (95% confidence interval: 94.4%–98.8%) and 26.2 (95% confidence interval: 12.5%–54.8%), respectively. The Fleiss kappa value for inter-rater reliability was 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.47–0.54) for junior and senior nurse groups, respectively. Conclusion: The current triage scale demonstrates reasonable validity and reliability for use in our older people. Considerations highlighting the unique characteristics of older people emergency department presentations are recommended.
香港地区急诊科老年人分流量表的有效性和可靠性
背景:年龄大于或等于65岁的老年人在急诊科分诊中面临着独特的挑战。香港医院管理局(Hospital Authority)采用五级急诊科分诊制度,没有特别考虑老年人。我们评估了该分诊量表在香港地区急诊科老年人中的有效性和可靠性。方法:随机抽取2016年11月至2017年1月间按分诊分类分层的295例患者进行回顾性分析。有效性是通过比较真实的急诊科患者分类与(1)专家小组的分类和(2)需要挽救生命的干预来确定的。分诊记录被提取出来,以形成案例情景,以评估评价者之间和内部的可靠性。随机选择急诊科护士(n = 8),并将其分组为<5年和小于5年的急诊科经验。所有护士独立评估所有295种情况,对临床结果不知情。结果:实际急诊科患者分诊分类与专家组分配的一致性百分比为68.5%,分诊过多和分诊不足的比例分别为16.3%和15.3%。与专家组一致的二次加权kappa为0.72(95%置信区间:0.53-0.91)。对救生干预需求的敏感性、特异性和阳性似然比分别为75.0%(95%置信区间:47.6% ~ 92.7%)、97.1%(95%置信区间:94.4% ~ 98.8%)和26.2(95%置信区间:12.5% ~ 54.8%)。初级护士组和高级护士组间信度的Fleiss kappa值分别为0.50(95%可信区间:0.47-0.54)。结论:现有分诊量表在老年人中具有合理的效度和信度。建议在急诊科的报告中强调老年人的独特特征。
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access journal which focusses on all aspects of clinical practice and emergency medicine research in the hospital and pre-hospital setting.
×
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