Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Inter-observer agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale

  • Daria Manos (a1), David A. Petrie (a1) (a2), Robert C. Beveridge (a1) (a3), Stephen Walter (a4) and James Ducharme (a1) (a3)...

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the inter-observer agreement on triage assignment by first-time users with diverse training and background using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS).

Methods:

Twenty emergency care providers (5 physicians, 5 nurses, 5 Basic Life Support paramedics and 5 Advanced Life Support paramedics) at a large urban teaching hospital participated in the study. Observers used the 5-level CTAS to independently assign triage levels for 42 case scenarios abstracted from actual emergency department patient presentations. Case scenarios consisted of vital signs, mode of arrival, presenting complaint and verbatim triage nursing notes. Participants were not given any specific training on the scale, although a detailed one-page summary was included with each questionnaire. Kappa values with quadratic weights were used to measure agreement for the study group as a whole and for each profession.

Results:

For the 41 case scenarios analyzed, the overall agreement was significant (quadratic-weighted κ = 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.78). For all observers, modal agreement within one triage level was 94.9%. Exact modal agreement was 63.4%. Agreement varied by triage level and was highest for Level I (most urgent). A reasonably high level of intra- and inter-professional agreement was also seen.

Conclusions:

Despite minimal experience with the CTAS, inter-observer agreement among emergency care providers with different backgrounds was significant.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Inter-observer agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Inter-observer agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Inter-observer agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, 1796 Summer St., Halifax NS B3H 3A7; fax 902 494-1625; dapetrie@is.dal.ca

References

Hide All
1.Harden, RD.Critical appraisal of papers describing triage systems. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:116671.
2.Williams, RM.Triage and emergency department services. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:5068.
3.Brillman, JC, Doezema, D, Tandberg, D, Sklar, DP, Davis, KD, Simms, S.Triage: limitations in predicting need for emergent care and hospital admission. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:493500.
4.Gill, JM, Reese, CL, Diamond, JJ.Disagreement among health care professionals about the urgent care needs of emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:4748.
5.Read, S, George, S, Westlake, L, Williams, B, Glasgow, J, Potter, T.Piloting an evaluation of triage. Int J Nurs Stud 1992;29(3): 27588.
6.George, S, Read, S, Westlake, L, Fraser-Moodie, A, Pritty, P, Williams, B.Differences in priorities assigned to patients by triage nurses and by consultant physicians in accident and emergency departments. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1993;47:3125.
7.Beveridge, R. CAEP issues. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: a new and critical element in health care reform. Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. J Emerg Med 1998;16(3):50711.
8.Cleary, MI, Ashby, RH, Jelinek, GA, Lagaida, R. The future of casemix in emergency medicine and ambulatory care. Med J Aust 1994;161(Suppl):S303.
9.Australasian College for Emergency Medicine. The Australasian Triage Scale [policy document]. Emerg Med 1994;6:1456. Also available: www.acem.org.au/open/documents/triage.htm (accessed 2001 Nov 27).
10.Beveridge, R.The president’s letter. CAEP Communiqué 1995;Apr:1.
11.Derlet, RW, Nishio, DA.Refusing care to patients who present to an emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:2627.
12.Derlet, RW, Kinser, D, Ray, L, Hamilton, B, McKenzie, J.Prospective identification and triage of nonemergency patients out of an emergency department: a 5-year study. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:21523.
13.Lowe, PA, Bindman, AB, Ulrich, SK, Norman, G, Scaletta, TA, Keane, D, el al. Failure to validate a predictive model for refusal of care to emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med 1994;1:2137.
14.Beveridge, R, Clarke, B, Janes, L, Savage, N, Thompson, J, Dodd, G, et al. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale implementation guidelines. CJEM 1999;1(3 Suppl).
15.Jelinek, G, Little, M.Interrater reliability of the National Triage Scale. Emerg Med 1996;8:22630.
16.Beveridge, R, Ducharme, J, Janes, L, Beaulieu, S, Walter, S.Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: interrater agreement. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:1559.
17.Landis, J, Koch, G.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:15974.
18.Fleiss, J.Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Wiley; 1981.
19.Holman, CD.Analysis of interobserver variation on a programmable calculator. Am J Epidemiol 1984;120:15460.
20.Butler, WR.ED patient classification matrix: development and testing of one tool. J Emerg Nursing 1986;12:27985.
21.Brillman, JC, Doezema, D, Tandberg, D, Sklar, DP, Skipper, BJ.Does a physician visual assessment change triage? Am J Emerg Med 1997;15:2933.
22.Neely, KW, Drake, ME, Moorhead, JC, Schmidt, TA, Skeen, DT, Wilson, EA.Multiple options and unique pathways: A new direction for EMS? Ann Emerg Med 1997;30:7979.
23.Neely, KW.Ambulance transports: What are the alternatives? Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:113741.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed