Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Original research
  • Open Access

Initial assessment, level of care and outcome among children who were seen by emergency medical services: a prospective observational study

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine201826:88

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0560-8

  • Received: 26 July 2018
  • Accepted: 12 October 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The assessment of children in the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is infrequent representing 5.4% of the patients in an urban area in the western part of Sweden. In Sweden, patients are assessed on scene by an EMS nurse whom independently decides on interventions and level of care. To aid the EMS nurse in the assessment a triage instrument, Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System-paediatrics (RETTS-p) developed for Emergency Department (ED) purpose has been in use the last 5 years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the EMS nurse assessment, management, the utilisation of RETTS-p and patient outcome.

Methods

A prospective, observational study was performed on 651 children aged < 16 years from January to December 2016. Statistical tests used in the study were Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test and Spearman’s rank statistics.

Results

The dispatch centre indexed life-threatening priority in 69% of the missions but, of all children, only 6.1% were given a life threatening RETTS-p red colour by the EMS nurse. A total of 69.7% of the children were transported to the ED and, of these, 31.7% were discharged without any interventions. Among the non-conveyed patients, 16 of 197 (8.1%) visited the ED within 72 h but only two were hospitalised. Full triage, including five out of five vital signs measurements and an emergency severity index, was conducted in 37.6% of all children. A triage colour was not present in 146 children (22.4%), of which the majority were non-conveyed. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.8% (n = 5) in children 0–15 years.

Conclusions

Despite the incomplete use of all vital signs according to the RETTS-p, the EMS nurse assessment of children appears to be adapted to the clinical situation in most cases and the patients appear to be assessed to the appropriate level of care but indicating an over triage. It seems that the RETTS-p with full triage is used selectively in the pre-hospital assessment of children with a risk of death during the first 30 days of less than 1%.

Keywords

  • Triage
  • Children
  • Pre-hospital assessment
  • Patient safety
  • EMS nurse
  • Level of care

Background

The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have developed rapidly over the last decades with the ability to perform interventions on scene which requires competence and clinical judgment to adequately assess the patient’s condition. In Sweden all ambulances are manned by a registered nurse, often with specialist training. The EMS nurses have been given the responsibility to assess patients at the scene and independently decide on treatment and level of care. To aid the EMS nurse in the assessment a triage protocol is being used. The Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System-paediatrics (RETTS-p) was initially developed for triaging within the paediatric Emergency Department (pED), and the majority of the pEDs at university hospitals use the RETTS-p. The pED in the western part of Sweden have approximately 50,000 visits each year with a hospital admission rate of 14% and have been using the RETTS-p since 2010. The EMS, organised under the university hospital, implemented the RETTS-p during 2014 to start the triage process at an early stage in the chain of care. The RETTS-p is a five-level scale including vital signs (VS) in each patient assessment. Five-level triage scales have shown a higher accuracy identifying critical ill patients compared to three-level triage scales [1, 2]. The Canadian paediatric triage and acuity scale (pedCTAS), Manchester triage system (MTS), Emergency severity index (ESI), and the Australasian triage scale (ATS) are all based on expert opinion such as the RETTS-p and are common in the pED [3]. They have shown moderate to good reliability and validity [411]. The ESI have in several studies in different locations shown an association of 80–100% predicting hospital admission in the highest triage levels [9, 1214]. Validity studies are lacking for the RETTS-p but previous studies have shown a good to a very good reliability between nurses in the pED [15, 16]. The accuracy of triage in the EMS has been extensively studied in the assessment of trauma patients, indicating difficulties in the assessment of the patient with both over-triage and under-triage [1720]. A five-level triage tool in the EMS might be favourable for detecting a severely ill patient [21]. The use of triage in the EMS to assess paediatric patients was proposed 25 years ago [22]. However, implementing more complex triage systems for adult patients has shown only moderate agreement between the EMS assessment and ED nurses [23, 24]. Furthermore, the appropriateness of the EMS nurse assessment utilising an pED triage system is unknown. Thus, there is a knowledge gap whether it is feasible to apply it in the pre-hospital setting in order to triage the patient to the appropriate triage level in the pED. The aim of this study was therefor to evaluate the initial priority given by the dispatcher,the EMS nurse assessment, management, utilisation of the RETTS-p and finally patient outcome in an unselected population of children under the age of 16.

Methods

Design

The present study was a prospective observational study of paediatric emergency patients who were assessed by an EMS nurse.

RETTS-p

The RETTS-p is made up of two parts, vital signs (VS) and emergency signs and symptoms (ESS). The level of severity is based on the highest colour of ESS or VS that becomes the final triage level. Red is stated as life threatening, orange is potentially life threatening and both levels are, from a time perspective, defined as emergency care directly. Yellow and green are defined as no individual medical risk if put on wait for assessment by a physician. Five VS, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, pulse frequency, body temperature and level of consciousness, are recorded and adjusted to age intervals, including pulse correction for patients presenting with fever. An upset child can affect the pulse rate, and this may prevent the child from showing a reliable VS [25]. The level of consciousness is defined by the RETTS-p as “alert” (Green), “tired/crummy” (Yellow), GCS 11–13 (Orange) and GCS ≤10 or ongoing seizures (Red). There are a total of 40 ESS cards with the most common complaints. The RETTS-p is not constructed as an instrument to decide whether the patient qualifies for emergency care nor to reject a patient emergency care in a pre-hospital context. However, the lowest triage level, blue category, means that, after assessment, the patient could be referred to other levels of care with no medical risk. Within the EMS organisation included in this study, only levels green to red are currently being used.

Settings

The study was conducted within an EMS organisation operating in an urban area in the western part of Sweden. The EMS organisation covers an area of 900 km2 with a population of 660,000 inhabitants and with predominantly short transportation times. During the year of 2016, the EMS carried out more than 80,000 ambulance missions (priority 1 to 3) and, of these, 58,575 assignments involve an initial patient assessment defined as a primary mission (Fig. 1). Approximately 3150 (5.4%) of these missions involve children aged < 16 years. The Emergency medical dispatch centre prioritise the patient with help from a Dispatch Medical Index (DMI). The DMI originally developed in the US has been adapted and used in Sweden since 1995 [26]. Based on the DMI a priority is given to the mission and an ambulance is allocated. Priority 1 is defined as life threatening to which the EMS responds with blue lights and sirens, priority 2 is urgent but not life threatening and priority 3 is assignments where the waiting time would not affect the medical condition. All the ambulances within the organisation are advanced life support (ALS) units and each ambulance is manned by at least one registered nurse responsible for patient assessment and the administration of drugs according to Swedish regulations. The EMS organisation aims to increase the number of specialist nurses trained in pre-hospital care, which comprises of a one-year postgraduate education in pre-hospital care. Fifty per cent of the staff within the EMS organisation are specialist nurses with this training.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flow chart of the studied patients, the distribution of patient assesment and median age

Materials

The patients in this study were included consecutively from a larger sample of the first 1000 assignments each month (January–December) in 2016 (n = 12,000). The inclusion criterion was an EMS assignment where a patient assessment took place at the scene. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) patients > 16 years, 2) assignments with no patient contact, 3) assignments assisting other EMS units and 4) inter-hospital transportation. A total of 716 patients under the age of 16 were initially identified from the sample. After a manual review, 65 patients were excluded as they did not fulfil the criteria and a total of 651 patients were finally included in the study (Fig. 1). Data were collected from EMS records and hospital records. Scanned patient records in which medications are prescribed in the pED were also reviewed for each patient.

Statistical analysis

In the tables, results are presented as the number (percentage) or median (25th, 75th percentile). For two-group comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U test was used, while Fisher’s exact test was used for continuous/ordered and dichotomous/categorical variables respectively. To test for associations with age, Spearman’s rank statistics were used for continuous/ordered variables and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for dichotomous/categorical variables. The actual age (in years) was used for p-value calculations (Tables 1, 2, 3), although in Table 2 data are presented for patients dichotomised by the median (3 years). All tests are two sided and, due to the number of tests performed, p-values below 0.01 were regarded as statistically significant. Data processing and statistical analysis were performed using SPSS version 22.
Table 1

Children allocated to pED or non-conveyed

 

Assessed to pED n = 454

Non-conveyed n = 197

P

Age - year (25th, 75th percentile)

 Median

4 (1,11)

2 (1,7)

0.002

Gender - n(%)

 Female

194 (42.7)

86 (43.7)

0.863

Dispatcher priority - n(%)

  

<0.001

 Priority 1

336 (74.0)

113 (57.3)

 

 Priority 2

113 (24.9)

75 (38.1)

 

 Priority 3

5 (1.1)

9 (4.6)

 

Dispatch classification indexa - n(%)

 Respiratory distress

89 (19.6)

51 (25.9)

0.078

 Fever

55 (12.1)

34 (17.3)

0.083

 Convulsions ongoing/ terminated

63 (13.9)

11 (5.6)

0.002

 Major trauma high energy/ large bleeding/ headinjury

54 (11.9)

14 (7.1)

0.071

 Minor trauma extremity/ wound/ fracture

46 (10.1)

21 (10.7)

0.888

Time of day - n(%)

  

0.034

 08:00-16:00

163 (35.9)

58 (29.5)

 

 16:00-24:00

221 (48.7)

96 (48.7)

 

 24:00-08:00

70 (15.4)

43 (21.8)

 

Medical historyb - n(%)

 No medical history

297 (65.4)

132 (67.0)

0.720

 Asthma, common cold with asthma

27 (5.9)

15 (7.6)

0.487

 Congenital disability

30 (6.6)

12 (6.1)

0.864

 Febrile non-epileptical convulsions, absences

24 (5.3)

7 (3.6)

0.425

 Allergies

18 (4.0)

8 (4.1)

0.999

Vital signs - median (25th, 75th percentile)

 Respiratory rate/min (141, 98)c

22 (18,30)

22 (20,29)

0.800

 Saturation % (71, 72)

98 (97,100)

99 (98,100)

0.003

 Pulse rate/min (79, 74)

117 (90,140)

115 (95,140)

0.858

 Temperature °C (133, 86)

37.3 (36.7,38.4)

37.2 (36.7,38.1)

0.880

Level of consciousness according to RETTS-p - n(%) (81, 26)

  

<0.001

 Alert

276 (74.0)

162 (94.7)

 

 Tired/ Crummy

54 (14.5)

8 (4.7)

 

 GCS 11-13

30 (8.0)

1 (0.6)

 

 GCS ≤ 10/ Ongoing seizure

13 (3.5)

0

 

EMS nurse triage level according to RETTS-p - n(%) (64, 82)c

  

<0.001

 Red

40 (10.3)

0 (0.0)

 

 Orange

109 (27.9)

4 (3.4)

 

 Yellow

179 (45.9)

34 (29.6)

 

 Green

62 (15.9)

77 (67.0)

 

Assessed condition according to RETTS-pd - n(%) (64, 83)c

 Trauma (head, thorax, extremity, burn)

100 (25.6)

17 (14.9)

<0.001

 Respiratory difficulty (dyspnoea, Shortness of breath)

58 (14.9)

28 (24.6)

0.023

 Convulsion

76 (19.5)

5 (4.4)

< 0.001

 Fever

26 (6.7)

20 (17.5)

0.001

 Abdominal pain

30 (7.7)

10 (8.8)

0.696

Drug administration - n(%)e

 EMS nurse drug administration

204 (44.9)

26 (13.2)

< 0.001

 Antipyretics

74 (16.3)

11 (5.6)

< 0.001

 Local anesthetics

43 (9.5)

0

< 0.001

 Oxygen

29 (6.4)

1 (0.5)

< 0.001

 Analgetics

29 (6.4)

0

< 0.001

 Steroids

25 (5.5)

8 (4.1)

0.561

Mortality - n(%)

 < 30 days

5 (1.1)

0

0.330

aDispatch index can consist of one or two indexes

bThe most common medical history, a patient can have more than one condition

cMissing vital signs, triage level and assessed condition for children assessed to pED and non-conveyed respectively

dThe most common assessed conditions according to RETTS-p

eThe most common administered drugs, a patient could have been administered more than one

Table 2

Patient assessment and association with age

 

Age ≤ 3 years n = 335

Age > 3 years n = 316

P

Gender - n(%)

 Female

133 (39.7)

147 (46.5)

0.030

Dispatcher priority - n(%)

  

<0.001

 Priority 1

253 (75.5)

196 (62.0)

 

 Priority 2

75 (22.4)

113 (35.8)

 

 Priority 3

7 (2.1)

7 (2.2)

 

Dispatch classification indexa - n(%)

 Respiratory distress

102 (30.4)

38 (12.0)

<0.001

 Fever

64 (19.1)

25 (7.9)

<0.001

 Convulsions ongoing/ terminated

49 (14.6)

25 (7.9)

0.146

 Major trauma high energy/ large bleeding/ headinjury

32 (9.6)

36 (11.4)

0.243

 Minor trauma exremity/ wound/ fracture

19 (5.7)

48 (15.2)

<0.001

Time of day - n(%)

  

0.015

 08:00-16:00

103 (30.7)

118 (37.3)

 

 16:00-24:00

166 (49.6)

151 (47.8)

 

 24:00-08:00

66 (19.7)

47 (14.9)

 

Medical historyb - n(%)

 No medical history

230 (68.7)

199 (63.0)

0.015

 Common cold with asthma/ asthma

25 (7.5)

17 (5.4)

0.954

 Congenital disability

15 (4.5)

27 (8.5)

0.159

 Febrile non-epileptical convulsions, absences

24 (7.2)

7 (2.2)

0.168

 Allergies

11 (3.3)

15 (4.7)

0.178

Primary vital signs - median (25th, 75th percentile)

 Respiratory rate/min (164, 75)c

30 (24,40)

20 (16,22)

<0.001

 Saturation % (103, 40)

98 (97,100)

99 (98,100)

0.001

 Pulse rate/min (113, 40)

140 (120,160)

98 (83,117)

<0.001

 Temperature °C (126, 93)

37.5 (36.7,38.8)

37.1 (36.7,37.8)

<0.001

Level of consciousness according to RETTS-p - n(%) (58, 49)

  

<0.001

 Alert

204 (73.6)

234 (87.7)

 

 Tired/ Crummy

47 (17.0)

15 (5.6)

 

 GCS 11-13

19 (6.9)

12 (4.5)

 

 GCS ≤ 10/ Ongoing seizure

7 (2.5)

6 (2.2)

 

EMS nurse triage level according to RETTS-p - n(%) (99, 47)c

  

0.134

 Red

19 (8.1)

21 (7.8)

 

 Orange

52 (22.0)

61 (22.7)

 

 Yellow

93 (39.4)

120 (44.6)

 

 Green

72 (30.5)

67 (24.9)

 

Assessed condition according to RETTS-pd - n(%) (100,47)c

 Trauma (head, thorax, extremity, burn)

35 (14.9)

82 (30.5)

<0.001

 Respiratory difficulty (dyspnoea, shortness of breath)

64 (27.2)

22 (8.2)

<0.001

 Convulsions

55 (23.4)

26 (9.7)

0.002

 Fever

29 (12.4)

17 (6.3)

0.023

 Abdominal pain

5 (2.1)

35 (13.0)

<0.001

EMS nurse Assessment - n(%)

 Assessed to pED

223 (66.6)

231 (73.1)

0.002

 Renewed contact within 72he

10 (8.9)

6 (7.1)

0.511

Drug administration - n(%)f

 EMS nurse administration

114 (34.0)

116 (36.7)

0.085

 Antipyretics

42 (12.5)

43 (13.6)

0.198

 Local anesthetics

18 (5.4)

25 (7.9)

0.092

 Oxygen

18 (5.4)

12 (3.8)

0.292

 Analgesics

3 (0.9)

26 (8.2)

<0.001

 Steroids

16 (4.8)

17 (5.4)

0.441

Mortality - n(%)

 < 30 days

3 (0.9)

2 (0.6)

0.404

aDispatch index can consist of one or two indexes

bThe most common medical history, a patient can have more than one condition

cMissing vital signs, triage level and assessed condition for ≤ 3 year and over 3 years respectively

dThe most common assessed conditions according to RETTS-p

ePatients initially non-conveyed that visited the pED within 72 hours

fThe most common administered drugs, a patient could have been administered more than one

Table 3

Adherence to the RETTS-p

 

Full triage n = 245

Non-full triage n = 406

P

Age - year (25th, 75th percentile)

 Median

6 (2,12)

2 (1,7)

< 0.001

Gender - n(%)

 Female

109 (44.5)

171 (42.1)

0.568

Dispatcher priority - n(%)

  

0.862

 Priority 1

170 (69.4)

279 (68.7)

 

 Priority 2

70 (28.6)

118 (29.1)

 

 Priority 3

5 (2.0)

9 (2.2)

 

EMS nurse assessment - n(%)

 Non-conveyed

55 (22.4)

142 (35.0)

0.001

 Renewed contact within 72ha

5 (9.1)

11 (7.7)

0.795

EMS nurse triage level according to RETTS-p - n(%) (0, 146)b

  

0.607

 Red

15 (6.1)

25 (6.2)

 

 Orange

56 (22.9)

57 (14.0)

 

 Yellow

116 (47.3)

97 (23.9)

 

 Green

58 (23.7)

81 (20.0)

 

Drug administration - n(%)

 EMS nurse administration

101 (41.2)

129 (31.8)

0.015

 pED administrationc

34 (17.9)

39 (14.8)

0.372

 EMS nurse and pED administrationd

41 (21.6)

61 (23.1)

0.701

Management pED - n(%)

 No intervention discharged

53 (27.9)

91 (34.5)

0.153

 Intervention prescription/min. surgery/x-ray discharged

85 (44.7)

102 (38.6)

0.209

 Admission to in-patient care

52 (27.4)

71 (26.9)

0.915

Days of in-patient care - n

 Mean (SD)

3.3 (6.1)

3.4 (4.7)

0.095

 Median (25th,75th percentile)

2 (1,3)

2 (1,4)

0.674

ICD-10 Codes - n(%)e (69, 170)b

 (S,T) Injury, poisoning and certain other consequnces of external causes

41 (23.4)

85 (35.9)

0.007

 Fractures

8 (19.5)

14 (16.5)

 

 Superficial injuries

2 (4.9)

16 (18.8)

 

 (R) Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings

53 (30.3)

54 (22.8)

0.090

 Convulsions, not elsewhere classified

25 (47.2)

35 (64.8)

 

 Unspecific abdominal pain

10 (18.9)

3 (5.5)

 

 (J) Diseases of the respiratory system

23 (13.1)

33 (13.9)

0.885

 Acute obstructive laryngitis

6 (26.1)

11 (33.3)

 

 Acute upper respiratory infections

5 (21.7)

10 (30.3)

 

 (A,B) Certain infectious and parasitic diseases

16 (9.1)

22 (9.3)

0.999

 Viralinfection of unspecified site

7 (43.8)

15 (68.2)

 

 Infectious gastroenteritis and colitis, unspecified

4 (25.0)

6 (27.3)

 

Mortality - n (%)

 < 30 days

1 (0.4)

4 (0.9)

0.655

aPatients initially non-conveyed

bMissing triage level and diagnose code for full triage and non-full triage

cAdministration of drugs in the pED identical to drugs in the ambulance and not administrated in the ambulance

dAdministration of drugs in the ambulance and follow up dose or additional drugs in the pED identical to the drugs in the ambulance

eThe five most common diagnose groups of patients transported to the pED

Results

Children allocated to pED or non-conveyed

The median age for all children was 3 years. Among children < 16 years of age, 30.3% were non-conveyed after assessment, with a referral to primary care or with self-care advice. These non-conveyed children were significantly younger than those transported to the pED (Table 1). There was a significant association between a higher priority level assessed by dispatch and the patient being transported to the pED. Thus, children assessed as being in need of pED care by the EMS nurse were given a significantly higher priority by dispatch. However, of the assignments with priority 1 from dispatch, only 7.8% were assessed as life threatening (RETTS-p red) by the EMS nurse and, in the total study population, only 6.1% of the patients were given a red triage level (Table 1). Respiratory distress was the most common DMI overall. The DMI for convulsions was significantly more common in the pED care group compared with those non-conveyed. There was no significant difference in EMS allocation regarding time of day between the two groups, but an overall decrease in patient contact during the night was observed. The majority of the children had no previous medical history, but, among those with a medical history, the most frequent previous conditions were asthma/common cold with asthma and congenital disability. Children assessed to the pED had a significantly greater reduction in oxygen saturation and a more affected level of consciousness than children who were not conveyed. In overall terms, a triage colour was missing in 22.4% of the assessments and the proportion was higher for children assessed to stay at the scene compared with patients transported to the pED. Patients assessed to pED care were associated with a significantly higher triage level. Trauma was the most common condition according to the RETTS-P assessment and, together with convulsions, it was significantly more common in those transported to the pED, whereas fever was more common in the non-conveyance group. Significantly more children in the pED group received medical treatment by the EMS nurse. Children who died within 30 days (n = 5) were all initially transported to hospital (Table 1).

Renewed contact within 72 h

Of the non-conveyed patients (n = 197), 16 (8.1%) visited the pED within 72 h. Seven of these patients were transported by ambulance, one in a single manned technician patient transport and the remaining eight by their own transport. Three of the 16 patients were assessed, treated and discharged by a pED nurse, one patient was left before evaluation and 12 children were assessed by a physician. Of these 12, two were admitted to inpatient care, seven were discharged with an intervention/prescription and three patients were discharged without any intervention. One patient with a final diagnosis of anaphylaxis who initially received epinephrine, administered by one of the parents, was observed in the pED and was given additional treatment.

Patient assessment and association with age

There was a significant inverse association between age and dispatch priority. Respiratory distress and fever were the most common DMI among younger children and they were significantly associated with a lower age. For older children, minor trauma was the most common condition assessed by dispatch and it was significantly associated with a higher age (Table 2). There was no significant difference in age regarding time of day. Increased respiratory rate, decreased oxygen saturation and increased pulse frequency and body temperature were all significantly associated with a lower age, as was a lower level of consciousness (Table 2). The RETTS-P assessment of respiratory difficulty and convulsions was significantly associated with a lower age, whereas trauma and abdominal pain were associated with increasing age (Table 2). The most frequently administered drug was acetaminophen. The administration of analgesics (morphine, fentanyl and esketamine) was significantly associated with a higher age (Table 2).

Adherence to the RETTS-p

Of all the children assessed by the EMS nurse, 406 (62.4%) did not receive a full-triage (5 VS + ESS) and, of these children, 146 did not receive any triage colour at all (Table 3). Children with a limited triage were significantly younger and were non-conveyed to a greater extent. The most common missing VS was respiratory rate (Table 1), which was also more frequently missing among children who stayed at the scene compared with transported children (49.7 and 31.1% respectively, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the full triage and limited triage groups regarding admission to inpatient care or interventions in the pED (Table 3). A total of 412 (90.7%) patients transported to the pED received a diagnosis according to the ICD-10. Among all these patients, the most frequent diagnosis groups were “injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes” and these diagnosis groups were significantly more common among children who had a limited triage compared with those with a full triage (Table 3).

Discussion

Assignments involving children in pre-hospital emergency care are infrequent when related to the total number of ambulance missions in a national (Sweden) and an international perspective [2730]. The use of a structured triage system supporting the EMS nurse in the assessment of children may therefore be advocated to assure a systematic assessment. However, one third of the patients in the study stayed at the scene, indicating low resource utilisation. These data suggest that management by other levels of care may be a feasible alternative in many cases and this has also previously been reported [3134]. It is also known that dispatch priorities diverge from EMS assessments at the scene, resulting in dispatch over-triage [26, 35]. This was also found in this study. However, there may be several reasons for the high dispatch priority. The operator at the dispatch centre has limited possibilities to assess the child over the phone, is restricted to the DMI and should decide on the priority within seconds according to dispatch regulations. The patient’s condition is also a dynamic process where for example convulsions may have terminated at the arrival of the EMS. The available ambulance units may also play a role, where units with lower priority assignments can be cancelled and assigned to priority 1. Hence, if assigned to a lower priority, the time frame upon arrival may be uncertain for an ambulance to arrive at the scene. Furthermore, the EMS nurse at the scene administered drugs in 35% of patients for example inhalation drugs for acute obstructive laryngitis and the downgrade in priority on scene may also be explained by the fact that the intervention on scene lowered the triage level.

The diversity in the assessed severity of the condition between dispatch centre and the EMS indicates that other units, such as a single-responder unit, manned by one specialist trained and experienced nurse, may be a suitable alternative for the initial assessment of some of these patients. However, previous studies also report that patients of all ages who were assessed to stay at the scene with or without triage protocols renew their contact with health care within 72 h in up to 19% of cases [36, 37]. In this study, only 8.1% renewed their contact within 72 h, with only two patients admitted to inpatient care. This indicates that, with few exceptions, the EMS nurse has the ability and knowledge to assess and allocate patients to other levels of care. Furthermore, another 31.7% of the patients who were transported to the pED were discharged by the pED nurse or by a physician without any intervention. Parental concern about their child’s acuity and the feeling of security when transported by the EMS has been reported, even though it is not warranted [38], and this may sometimes explain why the EMS and the pED are contacted. A primary care centre located near the pED could be an alternative for this patient group. Another aspect is that more children who were non-conveyed were younger and, according to the EMS nurse, they could be managed by either self-care advice or treatment at the scene. On the other hand, the patients who were older were more predisposed to trauma and were therefore assessed as requiring pED resources due to for example a suspicion of a fracture.

Younger children were more frequently excluded from a triage colour, which could illustrate the difficulty of triaging an infant with VS according to the RETTS-p and the fact that this group were more likely to be non-conveyed. Patients with for example acute obstructive laryngitis where the primary RETTS-p assessment would indicate red or orange colour, were often thoroughly examined, treated and not conveyed. However, if triaged according to RETTS-p and only transported to the pED may have led to increased resource allocation in the pED.

This may indicate over-triage and the EMS nurse competence level, interventions on scene and the dynamic process of patient symptoms corresponding to the triage level in the EMS and later in the pED may play a role. Previous studies of the MTS similarly constructed as the RETTS-p have shown relatively high over-triage in the pED of 40–59% [10, 11, 39, 40], where over-triage was mostly found in the lower triage categories [10]. There was a certain non-compliance to the RETTS protocol leading to missing variables. This may be a sign of mismatch between the protocol and the patient population. Thus the nurse overruled the protocol by clinical judgement, which sometimes may highlight the soundness of clinical management. This is why it may be wise to have a specialized nurse instead of a technician that may always follow an algorithm. The priorities of a triage system should be aimed at a high sensitivity to reduce under-triage for safety reasons. However, an excess of over-triage could have an impact on resource utilisation and pose a threat to safety for other patients. On the other hand, if the RETTS-p is already correctly applied in the pre-hospital setting, it is possible to downgrade the triage level for patients who are improved by an EMS nurse intervention. Furthermore, the mere definition of a triage tool is to determine who needs emergency care from a physician directly and who can wait, which does not include any decision on treatment and release. A computerised decision support tool may be introduced to guide the EMS nurse in the assessment, thus applying triage protocols when indicated for the utilisation of pED resources, which may increase compliance in the assessment process [41, 42].

The majority of the children were not completely triaged according to the RETTS-p. These patients did not receive a triage colour at all or were given a triage colour but with one or more VS missing. It could be suggested that an incomplete triage could jeopardise patient safety and thus omit significant abnormal vital signs. However, previous studies have shown that VS are only moderate predictors when assessing children in need of a trauma centre [43] and, furthermore, that there is a correlation between the degree of acuity level and the number of VS that were registered [44]. Even though measuring VS in the EMS care of injured and sick children has been emphasised to reduce under-triage [45, 46], implementing VS in all the patients in the MTS for paediatrics did not improve performance [47]. There are a number of reasons that may explain why not all VS according to the RETTS-p were measured in this study. They include a lower age, patients assessed as not being in need of VS measurement, short transport times and isolated and minor injuries in otherwise healthy children. This indicates that the RETTS-p is not feasible in the pre-hospital setting for all patients since it is not applied systematically. Other instruments such as the Patient assessment triangle (PAT) may be a viable alternative in the pre-hospital setting together with an A-E survey [48]. The PAT is a less complex tool and has shown to be reliable, accurate and easy to use at the initial assessment to evaluate the clinical status [4951]. There is a concern that a relatively high proportion of the younger children in this study not had all their VS recorded. Serious infections such as sepsis and meningitis have a higher incidence with decreasing age [52]. A previous study reported that 15.4% of the children, presented at the pED with a suspected infection, were diagnosed with a serious infection which were significantly associated with deviation in VS [53]. Even though not all five VP were recorded according to RETTS-p in this study, it may be that when VS were reported by the EMS nurse it was clinically relevant in the current situation. Such a hypothesis is supported by the low frequency of renewed contact within 72 h and the fact that of those, only one patient was diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening diagnosis with no deviation in VS. Despite being implemented in the EMS as a triage instrument, the RETTS-p was never intended to assess whether or not patients could remain at the scene. The aim was to use it during transport to the pED and, among these patients, to estimate the time required until the patient needed to be examined by a physician based on the severity of the condition. This may reflect why so many patients who stayed at the scene lacked a triage colour. Furthermore, some patients did not receive a triage colour due to a severe critical condition (cardiac arrest, obstructed airway). In these cases, the activation of a medical/trauma team and the requirement of an examination by a physician immediately upon arrival was obvious. Five patients died within thirty days from EMS arrival in this study. Three patients were hospitalized and of those two patients died from a terminal disease.

Strengths and limitations

The major strength is that data were collected from a relatively large study cohort from a well-defined area in a systematic fashion, where data were prospectively reported. Major limitations were that data were collected from a single site in an urban setting with short transportation times which most likely influenced the results. The extrapolation of these data to other areas may therefore be problematic. Furthermore, due to the design of the study, data had to be collected from the patient records and important clinical parameters such as VS may have been measured but never recorded.

Conclusions

A representative study cohort of children below 16 years of age appeared to be safely assessed by the EMS nurse either to stay at the scene in one third of the cases or to be transported to the paediatric emergency department, regardless of whether the triage instrument was used to its full extent. However, one third of the patients were discharged from the pED with no interventions indicating an over-triage. The RETTS-p triage protocol may act as a tool to guide the EMS nurse in the assessment with application when feasible. The development of the RETTS-p triage protocol incorporated into a computerised decision support system, and the implementation of nurse-manned units specialising in children may further increase the potential to assess children and refer them to other levels of care, such as primary care. This would hopefully result in reduced overcrowding at the paediatric emergency department and more efficient resource utilisation with preserved patient care and safety.

Abbreviations

ALS: 

Advanced life support

ATS: 

Australasian triage scale

DMI: 

Dispatch medical index

EMS: 

Emergency medical services

ESI: 

Emergency severity index

ESS: 

Emergency signs and symptoms

GCS: 

Glasgow coma scale

ICD-10: 

International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems – tenth revision

MTS: 

Manchester triage system

PAT: 

Patient assessment triangle

pED: 

Paediatric emergency department

PedCTAS: 

Pediatric Canadian triage and acuity scale

RETTS-p: 

Rapid emergency triage and treatment system for paediatrics

VS: 

Vital signs

Declarations

Acknowledgements

CM wishes to acknowledge LÖF, a nationwide Swedish insurance company which insures all publicly financed health-care providers, and the OLA Foundation (the foundation for prolonged and life-saving activities).

Funding

CM received funding from LÖF and the OLA Foundation for the patient safety project of which this study is part.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

CM, CA and JH developed the design and the research protocol. CM created the data forms and collected the data. TK supervised the statistical analysis. CM wrote the first draft. CA, JH and TK supervised and analysed the data and their interpretation. All the authors have participated in the final draft of the manuscript and have read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All the procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration and the study was approved by the central ethical review board, Gothenburg, Sweden, Dnr: 970–15.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
(2)
Pre Hospen-Centre for Prehospital Research, Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden
(3)
Health Metrics Unit, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

References

  1. Travers DA, Waller AE, Bowling JM, Flowers D, Tintinalli J. Five-level triage system more effective than three-level in tertiary emergency department. J Emerg Nurs. 2002;28(5):395–400.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Fernandes CM, Tanabe P, Gilboy N, Johnson LA, McNair RS, Rosenau AM, Sawchuk P, Thompson DA, Travers DA, Bonalumi N, Suter RE. Five-level triage: a report from the ACEP/ENA five-level triage task force. J Emerg Nurs. 2005;31(1):39–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. van Veen M, Moll HA. Reliability and validity of triage systems in paediatric emergency care. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2009;17:38.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Ebrahimi M, Heydari A, Mazlom R, Mirhaghi A. The reliability of the Australasian triage scale: a meta-analysis. World J Emerg Med. 2015;6(2):94–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen AR, Spittal MJ, Nicolas C, Oakley E, Freed GL. Accuracy and interrater reliability of paediatric emergency department triage. Emerg Med Australas. 2015;27(5):447–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Ma W, Gafni A, Goldman RD. Correlation of the Canadian pediatric emergency triage and acuity scale to ED resource utilization. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(8):893–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Gravel J, Gouin S, Manzano S, Arsenault M, Amre D. Interrater agreement between nurses for the pediatric Canadian triage and acuity scale in a tertiary care center. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(12):1262–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Gravel J, Manzano S, Arsenault M. Validity of the Canadian paediatric triage and acuity scale in a tertiary care hospital. CJEM. 2009;11(1):23–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Green NA, Durani Y, Brecher D, DePiero A, Loiselle J, Attia M. Emergency severity index version 4: a valid and reliable tool in pediatric emergency department triage. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012;28(8):753–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Roukema J, Steyerberg EW, van Meurs A, Ruige M, van der Lei J, Moll HA. Validity of the Manchester triage system in paediatric emergency care. Emerg Med J. 2006;23(12):906–10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. van Veen M, Steyerberg EW, Ruige M, van Meurs AH, Roukema J, van der Lei J, et al. Manchester triage system in paediatric emergency care: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2008;337:a1501.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Travers DA, Waller AE, Katznelson J, Agans R. Reliability and validity of the emergency severity index for pediatric triage. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(9):843–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Baumann MR, Strout TD. Evaluation of the emergency severity index (version 3) triage algorithm in pediatric patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(3):219–24.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Al-Hindi AA, Al-Akhfash AA, Fareed AM, Alhusainan KS, Algasomy SF, Althowainy IR. Efficacy of implementation of a 5 scale pediatric triage and acuity scale in pediatric emergency. Saudi Arabia Saudi Med J. 2014;35(9):999–1004.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Henning B, Lydersen S, Dollner H. A reliability study of the rapid emergency triage and treatment system for children. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24:19.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Westergren H, Ferm M, Haggstrom P. First evaluation of the paediatric version of the Swedish rapid emergency triage and treatment system shows good reliability. Acta Paediatr. 2014;103(3):305–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheung R, Ardolino A, Lawrence T, Bouamra O, Lecky F, Berry K, et al. The accuracy of existing prehospital triage tools for injured children in England- an analysis using trauma registry data. Emerg Med J. 2013;30(6):476–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lerner EB, Cushman JT, Drendel AL, Badawy M, Shah MN, Guse CE, et al. Effect of the 2011 revisions to the field triage guidelines on under- and over-triage rates for pediatric trauma patients. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(4):456–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. van Rein EAJ, Houwert RM, Gunning AC, Lichtveld RA, Leenen LPH, van Heijl M. Accuracy of prehospital triage protocols in selecting severely injured patients: a systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(2):328–39.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Voskens FJ, van Rein EAJ, van der Sluijs R, Houwert RM, Lichtveld RA, Verleisdonk EJ, et al. Accuracy of prehospital triage in selecting severely injured trauma patients. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):322–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tsai LH, Huang CH, Su YC, Weng YM, Chaou CH, Li WC, et al. Comparison of prehospital triage and five-level triage system at the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2017;34(11):720–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Seidel JS. Emergency medical services and the adolescent patient. J Adolesc Health. 1991;12(2):95–100.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Buschhorn HM, Strout TD, Sholl JM, Baumann MR. Emergency medical services triage using the emergency severity index: is it reliable and valid? J Emerg Nurs. 2013;39(5):e55–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Leeies M, Ffrench C, Strome T, Weldon E, Bullard M, Grierson R. Prehospital application of the Canadian triage and acuity scale by emergency medical services. CJEM. 2017;19(1):26–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Davies P, Maconochie I. The relationship between body temperature, heart rate and respiratory rate in children. Emerg Med J. 2009;26(9):641–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Khorram-Manesh A, Lennquist Montan K, Hedelin A, Kihlgren M, Ortenwall P. Prehospital triage, discrepancy in priority-setting between emergency medical dispatch Centre and ambulance crews. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2011;37(1):73–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Diggs LA, Sheth-Chandra M, De Leo G. Epidemiology of pediatric prehospital basic life support care in the United States. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;20(2):230–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Joyce SM, Brown DE, Nelson EA. Epidemiology of pediatric EMS practice: a multistate analysis. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1996;11(3):180–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Seid T, Ramaiah R, Grabinsky A. Pre-hospital care of pediatric patients with trauma. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2012;2(3):114–20.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Tsai A, Kallsen G. Epidemiology of pediatric prehospital care. Ann Emerg Med. 1987;16(3):284–92.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Camasso-Richardson K, Wilde JA, Petrack EM. Medically unnecessary pediatric ambulance transports: a medical taxi service? Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4(12):1137–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Kost S, Arruda J. Appropriateness of ambulance transportation to a suburban pediatric emergency department. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1999;3(3):187–90.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Patterson PD, Baxley EG, Probst JC, Hussey JR, Moore CG. Medically unnecessary emergency medical services (EMS) transports among children ages 0 to 17 years. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(6):527–36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Richard J, Osmond MH, Nesbitt L, Stiell IG. Management and outcomes of pediatric patients transported by emergency medical services in a Canadian prehospital system. CJEM. 2006;8(1):6–12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Dami F, Golay C, Pasquier M, Fuchs V, Carron PN, Hugli O. Prehospital triage accuracy in a criteria based dispatch Centre. BMC Emerg Med. 2015;15:32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Magnusson C, Kallenius C, Knutsson S, Herlitz J, Axelsson C. Pre-hospital assessment by a single responder: the Swedish ambulance nurse in a new role: a pilot study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2016;26:32–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Ebben RHA, Vloet LCM, Speijers RF, Tonjes NW, Loef J, Pelgrim T, et al. A patient-safety and professional perspective on non-conveyance in ambulance care: a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017;25(1):71.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Shah MN, Davis CO, Bauer C, Arnold J. Preferences for EMS transport and pediatric emergency department care. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008;12(2):169–75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. van Veen M, Steyerberg EW, Van't Klooster M, Ruige M, van Meurs AH, van der Lei J, et al. The Manchester triage system: improvements for paediatric emergency care. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(8):654–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Seiger N, van Veen M, Steyerberg EW, van der Lei J, Moll HA. Accuracy of triage for children with chronic illness and infectious symptoms. Pediatrics. 2013;132(6):e1602–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Andersson Hagiwara M, Suserud BO, Andersson-Gare B, Sjoqvist B, Henricson M, Jonsson A. The effect of a computerised decision support system (CDSS) on compliance with the prehospital assessment process: results of an interrupted time-series study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:70.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Hagiwara MA, Sjoqvist BA, Lundberg L, Suserud BO, Henricson M, Jonsson A. Decision support system in prehospital care: a randomized controlled simulation study. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(1):145–53.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Lerner EB, Drendel AL, Cushman JT, Badawy M, Shah MN, Guse CE, et al. Ability of the physiologic criteria of the field triage guidelines to identify children who need the resources of a trauma center. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(2):180–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Gravel J, Opatrny L, Gouin S. High rate of missing vital signs data at triage in a paediatric emergency department. Paediatr Child Health. 2006;11(4):211–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Hewes H, Hunsaker S, Christensen M, Whitney J, Dalrymple T, Taillac P. Documentation of pediatric vital signs by EMS providers over time. J Pediatr Surg. 2016;51(2):329–32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Seiger N, van Veen M, Steyerberg EW, Ruige M, van Meurs AH, Moll HA. Undertriage in the Manchester triage system: an assessment of severity and options for improvement. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96(7):653–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Seiger N, van Veen M, Almeida H, Steyerberg EW, van Meurs AH, Carneiro R, et al. Improving the Manchester triage system for pediatric emergency care: an international multicenter study. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e83267.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Fuchs S, Terry M, Adelgais K, Bokholdt M, Brice J, Brown KM, et al. Definitions and assessment approaches for emergency medical services for children. Pediatrics. 2016;138(6):e20161073.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Dieckmann RA, Brownstein D, Gausche-Hill M. The pediatric assessment triangle: a novel approach for the rapid evaluation of children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010;26(4):312–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Gausche-Hill M, Eckstein M, Horeczko T, McGrath N, Kurobe A, Ullum L, et al. Paramedics accurately apply the pediatric assessment triangle to drive management. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18(4):520–30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Horeczko T, Enriquez B, McGrath NE, Gausche-Hill M, Lewis RJ. The pediatric assessment triangle: accuracy of its application by nurses in the triage of children. J Emerg Nurs. 2013;39(2):182–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Van den Bruel A, Bartholomeeusen S, Aertgeerts B, Truyers C, Buntinx F. Serious infections in children: an incidence study in family practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson M, Coad N, Harnden A, Mayon-White R, Perera R, Mant D. How well do vital signs identify children with serious infections in paediatric emergency care? Arch Dis Child. 2009;94(11):888–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement