评估意大利的分诊效率:利用模拟病例对护士进行比较研究。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1007/s11739-024-03735-z
Arian Zaboli, Francesco Brigo, Alessandro Cipriano, Serena Sibilio, Gabriele Magnarelli, Norbert Pfeifer, Michele Fratti, Fabio Malalan, Magdalena Massar, Michael Mian, Nicola Pagnucci, Gloria Brigiari, Lorenzo Ghiadoni, Gianni Turcato
{"title":"评估意大利的分诊效率:利用模拟病例对护士进行比较研究。","authors":"Arian Zaboli, Francesco Brigo, Alessandro Cipriano, Serena Sibilio, Gabriele Magnarelli, Norbert Pfeifer, Michele Fratti, Fabio Malalan, Magdalena Massar, Michael Mian, Nicola Pagnucci, Gloria Brigiari, Lorenzo Ghiadoni, Gianni Turcato","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03735-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency Departments (EDs) across Italy use different triage systems, which vary from region to region. This study aimed to assess whether nurses working in different EDs assign triage codes in a similar and standardized manner.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter observational simulation study involved the EDs of Bolzano Hospital, Merano Hospital, Pisa University Hospital, and Rovereto Hospital. All participating nurses were given 30 simulated clinical cases (vignettes) and asked to assign triage codes according to the triage systems used in their EDs. Subsequently, we assessed inter-rater agreement and evaluated if code assignment had different performance among hospitals in relation to different clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-seven nurses participated in this study. There was marked variation in assigned triage codes both across hospitals and among individual operators. The kappa values for inter-rater agreement were 0.632 for Bolzano Hospital, 0.589 for Merano Hospital, 0.464 for Pisa University Hospital, and 0.574 for Rovereto Hospital. Sensitivity and specificity levels varied considerably for the same outcomes when comparing different hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a high degree of subjectivity in triage code assignment by ED nurses. In the interest of equitable care for patients, this variability within the same country is hardly acceptable.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1167-1176"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing triage efficiency in Italy: a comparative study using simulated cases among nurses.\",\"authors\":\"Arian Zaboli, Francesco Brigo, Alessandro Cipriano, Serena Sibilio, Gabriele Magnarelli, Norbert Pfeifer, Michele Fratti, Fabio Malalan, Magdalena Massar, Michael Mian, Nicola Pagnucci, Gloria Brigiari, Lorenzo Ghiadoni, Gianni Turcato\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-024-03735-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency Departments (EDs) across Italy use different triage systems, which vary from region to region. This study aimed to assess whether nurses working in different EDs assign triage codes in a similar and standardized manner.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter observational simulation study involved the EDs of Bolzano Hospital, Merano Hospital, Pisa University Hospital, and Rovereto Hospital. All participating nurses were given 30 simulated clinical cases (vignettes) and asked to assign triage codes according to the triage systems used in their EDs. Subsequently, we assessed inter-rater agreement and evaluated if code assignment had different performance among hospitals in relation to different clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-seven nurses participated in this study. There was marked variation in assigned triage codes both across hospitals and among individual operators. The kappa values for inter-rater agreement were 0.632 for Bolzano Hospital, 0.589 for Merano Hospital, 0.464 for Pisa University Hospital, and 0.574 for Rovereto Hospital. Sensitivity and specificity levels varied considerably for the same outcomes when comparing different hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a high degree of subjectivity in triage code assignment by ED nurses. In the interest of equitable care for patients, this variability within the same country is hardly acceptable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1167-1176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03735-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03735-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:意大利各地的急诊科(ED)使用不同的分诊系统,不同地区的分诊系统也不尽相同。本研究旨在评估在不同急诊室工作的护士是否以相似和标准化的方式分配分诊代码:多中心观察模拟研究涉及博尔扎诺医院、梅拉诺医院、比萨大学医院和罗韦雷托医院的急诊室。我们向所有参与研究的护士提供了 30 个模拟临床病例(小故事),要求她们根据各自急诊室使用的分诊系统分配分诊代码。随后,我们评估了评分者之间的一致性,并评估了不同医院的代码分配是否与不同的临床结果有不同的表现:87名护士参与了这项研究。不同医院和不同操作者分配的分诊代码存在明显差异。博尔扎诺医院、梅拉诺医院、比萨大学医院和罗韦雷托医院的评分者间一致性卡帕值分别为 0.632、0.589、0.464 和 0.574。在比较不同医院时,同一结果的敏感性和特异性水平差异很大:结论:急诊室护士在分配分诊代码时存在很大的主观性。结论:急诊室护士在分配分诊代码时存在很大的主观性,为了给患者提供公平的医疗服务,在同一国家内出现这种差异是难以接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing triage efficiency in Italy: a comparative study using simulated cases among nurses.

Assessing triage efficiency in Italy: a comparative study using simulated cases among nurses.

Background: Emergency Departments (EDs) across Italy use different triage systems, which vary from region to region. This study aimed to assess whether nurses working in different EDs assign triage codes in a similar and standardized manner.

Methods: A multicenter observational simulation study involved the EDs of Bolzano Hospital, Merano Hospital, Pisa University Hospital, and Rovereto Hospital. All participating nurses were given 30 simulated clinical cases (vignettes) and asked to assign triage codes according to the triage systems used in their EDs. Subsequently, we assessed inter-rater agreement and evaluated if code assignment had different performance among hospitals in relation to different clinical outcomes.

Results: Eighty-seven nurses participated in this study. There was marked variation in assigned triage codes both across hospitals and among individual operators. The kappa values for inter-rater agreement were 0.632 for Bolzano Hospital, 0.589 for Merano Hospital, 0.464 for Pisa University Hospital, and 0.574 for Rovereto Hospital. Sensitivity and specificity levels varied considerably for the same outcomes when comparing different hospitals.

Conclusion: There is a high degree of subjectivity in triage code assignment by ED nurses. In the interest of equitable care for patients, this variability within the same country is hardly acceptable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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