Skip to main content

Table 5 Studies on how the assessment of the urgency of need to see a physician according to different triage systems could predict hospital mortality.

From: Emergency Department Triage Scales and Their Components: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence

Author Year, reference Country Triage system Patient characteristics: Age Gender Outcome Results (Mortality frequency per triage level) Remarks Study quality and relevance
Dong SL et al
2007, [43]
Canada
ECTAS 29 346 patients
47 years
48% female
Mortality in ED Triage level:
1: 22%
2: 0.22%
3: 0.031%
4: 0.018%
5: 0%
OR 664 (357-1233),
1 vs 2-5
- Low number of fatalities (70 cases) Moderate
Dent A et al
1999, [35]
ATS 42 778 patients
Age & sex not given
In-hospital mortality Triage level:
1: 16%
2: 5%
3: 2%
4: 1%
5: 0.1%
p < 0.0001
  Moderate
Widgren BR et al
2008, [10]
Sweden
METTS 8 695 patients
65 years
45% female
In-hospital mortality Triage level:
1: 14%
2: 6%
3: 3%
4: 3%
5: 0.5%
p < 0.001
- Only patients admitted to hospital evaluated Moderate
Doherty SR et al
2003, [36]
ATS 84 802 patients
Age & sex not given
24 hours mortality Triage level:
1: 12%
2: 2.1%
3: 1.0%
4. 0.3%
5: 0.03%
p < 0.001
- Consecutive patients Moderate
  1. Mortality figures (%) are shown for each triage level for patients admitted to a hospital emergency department.
  2. CTAS = Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale; ATS = Australian Triage Scale; METTS = Medical Emergency Triage and Treatment System