Level of agreement between trained and non-trained personnel in triage with a computerized system
Abstract
“Triage” -the process of quickly examining patients according to their priority of treatment - is a tool that has been recognized for institutional and administrative management in the Emergency Departments. Eight years after its introduction, the Clinicas Hospital has an automatized and normalized process which has become the organizational bases to address consultations in a qualified manner.
The study aimed to compare triage done by health professionals who had been trained and the one done by health professionals with no prior training of IT support, to the computerized system, comparing it with results in real time.
A higher level of agreement between trained health professionals with the results in the computerized system, when compared to professionals who lacked training was observed.
The trained observer with the most matching results achieved 55.9% of agreements with the computerized triage system (19 out of 34), and the observer with the least matching results obtained 32.4% of similarities (11 out of 34). Global agreement level was 41.5% in the group of professionals who were not experts. Experienced observers accounted for 79.4% (27/34) of equal results and kappa index of 0.695, whereas trained observers had 0.19 and 0.23 Kappa indexes when compared to the computerized system and the experiences observer, respectively. Therefore, we find that a short training in triage does not increase agreement when compared to the computerized system and it does increase when we compare it to triage by an experienced observer. These results should be validated in larger series of patients.
References
(1) Madera PG. Triaje accepted into the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy. Emergencias 2017; 29(1):65-6.
(2) Soler W, Gómez Muñoz M, Bragulat E, Álvarez A. Triage: a key tool in emergency care. An Sis San Navar 2010; 33(1):55-68.
(3) Gómez Jiménez J, Torres Trillo M, López Pérez J, Jiménez Murillo L. Sistema Español de Triaje (SET). Madrid: SEMES, 2004: 111-22.
(4) Gómez Jiménez J, Chanovas Borràs MR, Miró Andreu O, Daza López M, Roqueta Ejea F, Echarte Pazos JL, et al. Triatge Estructurat als Serveis d'Urgències. Document de Posició de la Societat Catalana de Medicina d'Urgències i Emergències. Barcelona: SCMU, 2008. Disponible en: http://www.socmue.cat/Upload/Documents/5/59.pdf. Consulta: 20 marzo 2017.
(5) Abad-Grau MM, Ierache J, Cervino C, Sebastiani P. Evolution and challenges in the design of computational systems for triage assistance. J Biomed Inform 2008; 41(3):432-41.
(6) Gómez Jiménez J, Ramón-Pardo P, Ruda Moncada C. Manual para implementación de un sistema de Triaje para los cuartos de urgencia. Washington D.C.: OPS, 2011.
(7) Fleiss JL, Cohen J, Everitt BS. Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychol Bull 1969; 72:323-27.
(8) Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physic Ther 2005; 85:257-68.
(9) Bakeman R, Quera V, McArthur D, Robinson BF. Detecting sequential patterns and determining their reliability with fallible observers. Psychol Methods 1997; 2:357-70.
(10) Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1):159-74.
(11) Schmitz G. Quantitative outcome of the implementation of the Canadian Triage and Severity Scale in the emergency department of a national hospital. Acta méd costarric 2016; 58(3):110-4.
(12) Martínez-Segura E, Lleixà-Fortuño M, Salvadó-Usach T, Solà-Miravete E, Adell-Lleixà M, Chanovas-Borrás MR, et al. Competence of triage nurses in hospital emergency departments. Emergencias 2017; 29(3):173-7.
