Reliability of the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: Interrater Agreement☆,☆☆,★,★★
Section snippets
INTRODUCTION
Triage is a fundamental process for the safe and efficient use of an emergency department. Despite this, there are wide variations in existing triage scales and systems within and between different countries. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) proposed the use of a single 5-level triage scale for all Canadian EDs in 1995.1 This scale was based on the National Triage Scale (NTS) implemented in Australia in 1994.2, 3 The CAEP scale was made a mandatory element in the Canadian
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fifty actual cases, 10 from each triage level, were selected sequentially from the ED of a tertiary care ED with 50,000 patient visits per year. A written summary included the presenting complaint, the mode of arrival, vital signs, and a verbatim copy of the triage note. Ten nurses (5 part-time and 5 full-time) and 10 physicians (5 full-time ED physicians and 5 part-time physicians) were randomly selected to participate in the study. No participant had any formal training or experience with the
RESULTS
Nine of the nurses and 8 of the physicians returned spreadsheets with all data required for analysis.
The overall chance-corrected agreement κ for all observers was .80 (95% confidence interval [CI] .79 to .81), and the probability of agreement between 2 random observers on a random case was .539. For nurses alone, κ=.84 (95% CI .83 to .85) and P =.598; for doctors alone, κ=.83 (95% CI .81 to .85) and P =.566. The probability of a randomly selected observer selecting the same level as an earlier
DISCUSSION
We found excellent rates of agreement (κ=.80) between physicians and nurses despite the heterogeneity of their background and lack of formal training on the use of the scale. This is in contrast to numerous studies that report very poor agreement rates.8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 The triage scales and methods chosen to determine interobserver agreement are probably responsible for the widely disparate results between our study and those reported elsewhere. It is not surprising that comparisons of
References (25)
- et al.
Refusing care to patients who present to an emergency department [see comments]
Ann Emerg Med
(1990) - et al.
Prospective identification and triage of nonemergency patients out of an emergency department: A 5-year study
Ann Emerg Med
(1995) - et al.
Refusing care to emergency department of patients: Evaluation of published triage guidelines
Ann Emerg Med
(1994) - et al.
Triage: Limitations in predicting need for emergent care and hospital admission
Ann Emerg Med
(1996) - et al.
Triage: A literature review 1985-1993
Accid Emerg Nurs
(1995) - et al.
Disagreement among health care professionals about the urgent care needs of emergency department patients
Ann Emerg Med
(1996) - et al.
Judging who needs emergency department care: A prerequisite for policy-making
Am J Emerg Med
(1997) - et al.
Does a physician visual assessment change triage?
Am J Emerg Med
(1997) - et al.
Direct costs of emergency medical care: A diagnosis-based case-mix classification system
Ann Emerg Med
(1991) The President’s Letter
(April 1-3, 1995)
National Triage Scale
Emerg Med
Emergency department triage [thesis]
Cited by (0)
- ☆
From the Division of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John Regional Hospital, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada,* and the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Center,‡ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
- ☆☆
Address for reprints: Robert C Beveridge, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Emergency Medicine, Saint John Regional Hospital, PO Box 2100, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 4L2, Canada;506-648-6958, fax 506-548-6055; E-mail [email protected].
- ★
0196-0644/99/$8.00 + 0
- ★★
47/1/99937