Table 3 Reliability of triage scales
Author Year, reference Country | Triage system | Patient characteristics: Age Gender Triageur: Amount, profession | Results: κ-values, percentage agreement (PA)/triage level | Drop out (%) | Study quality and relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Considine J et al 2000, [26] Australia | ATS | 10 scenarios 31 RNs | Triage level: 1: 59.7% PA 2: 58% PA 3: 79% PA 4: 54.8% PA 5: 38.7% PA | 0% | Low External validity is uncertain, internal validity is good while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
Dong S et al 2006, [28] Canada | ETriage (CTAS) | 569 patients 49.4 years 51 % male Unknown amount of RNs | 0.40 (unweighted κ) Triage level: 1: 62.5% PA 2: 49.5% PA 3: 59.7% PA 4: 68.5% PA 5: 43.5% PA | 1% | Low External validity can not be assessed, internal validity is excellent while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
Dong S et al 2005, [29] Canada | CTAS/eTriage | 693 patients 48 years 49 % male 73 RNs | 0.202 (unweighted κ) Triage level: 1: 50% PA 2: 9% PA 3: 53.5% PA 4: 73.3% PA 5: 7.2% PA | 4% | Low External validity can not be assessed, internal validity is excellent while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
Manos D et al 2002, [30] Canada | CTAS | 42 scenarios 5 BLS 5 ALS 5 RNs 5 Drs | 0.77 overall (weighted κ) BLS: 0.76 (weighted κ) ALS: 0.73 (weighted κ) RNs: 0.80 (weighted κ) Drs: 0.82 (weighted κ) Triage level: 1: 78% PA 2: 49% PA 3: 37% PA 4: 41% PA 5: 49% PA | 0.2% | Low External validity can not be assessed, internal validity is acceptable while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
Beveridge R et al 1999, [27] Canada | CTAS | 50 scenarios 10 RNs 10 Drs | 0.80 overall (weighted κ) 0.84 RNs (weighted κ) 0.83 Drs (weighted κ) Weighted κ / triage level (RNs): Triage level: 1: 0.73 2: 0.52 3: 0.57 4: 0.55 5: 0.66 | 15% | Low External validity can not be assessed, internal validity is acceptable while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
Göransson K et al 2005, [19] Sweden | CTAS | 18 scenarios 423 RNs | 0.46 (unweighted κ) Triage level: 1: 85.4% PA 2: 39.5% PA 3: 34.9% PA 4: 32.1% PA 5: 65.1% PA | 0.8% | Low External validity can not be assessed, internal validity is acceptable while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
van der Wulp I et al 2008, [31] The Netherlands | MTS | 50 scenarios 55 RNs | 0.48 (unweighted κ) Triage level: 2: 9.8% PA 3: 35.5% PA 4: 22% PA | 7.5-35.7% | Low External validity is uncertain, internal validity is good while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
Maningas P et al 2006, [6] USA | SRTS | 423 patients 29.7 years 44% male 16 RN pairs | 0.87 (weighted κ) Triage level: 1: 85.7% PA 2: 86.7% PA 3: 86.8% PA 4: 93.9% PA 5: 74.2% PA | Low External validity can not be assessed, internal validity is good while sample size is of uncertain adequacy | |
Rutschmann OT et al 2006, [8] Switzerland | 4-tier system | 22 patient scenarios 45 RNs 8 Drs | RNs: 0.40 (weighted κ) Drs: 0.28 (weighted κ) Triage level: 1: 61% PA 2: 49.6% PA 3: 74.2% PA 4: 75.5% PA | 4% 0% | Low External validity is uncertain, internal validity is excellent while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |
Brillman J et al 1996, [32] USA | 4-tier system | 5 123 patients 64% < 35 years 54% male Unknown amount of RNs and Drs | 0.45 (unknown type of κ) Triage level: 1: 0.13% PA 2: 5.2% PA 3: 37.9% PA 4: 24.6% PA | 10% | Moderate External validity is clear, internal validity is good while sample size is of uncertain adequacy |