...
首页> 外文期刊>European journal of emergency medicine: Official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine >Interrater agreement: a comparison between two emergency department triage scales.
【24h】

Interrater agreement: a comparison between two emergency department triage scales.

机译:评估者间协议:两个急诊科分类标准的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to elucidate if, by strictly applying the Adaptive Process Triage (ADAPT) scale, the interrater agreement increased among the participating registered nurses (RNs) than when triaging according to the older scale, which allowed subjective interpretations of signs and symptoms. METHODS: Nineteen patient scenarios were triaged in 2006 by 45 RNs using the previous triage scale, and in 2008 by 30 RNs using ADAPT. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P=0.65) between the two triage scales with regard to level of overall exact agreement (kappa value 0.529 vs. 0.472). The same triage level was more often chosen when using the ADAPT system as compared to the earlier triage scale and dispersion across the triage levels was also reduced when using ADAPT. Eight (42%) of the patient scenarios were triaged as both unstable and stable by ADAPT, and 11 (58%) when the older scale was applied. Fourteen (74%) of the scenarios could not be allocated to a defined triage level by ADAPT. Five main reasons for such triage decisions were identified. CONCLUSION: Both the triage scales showed moderate overall agreements, while dispersion of triage decisions across several triage levels declined when ADAPT was used. Although the algorithm for acuity allocation by ADAPT seemed well defined, many patient scenarios were triaged as both unstable and stable and thus allocated to various triage levels. If ADAPT is to function as a safe triage tool with low interrater variability, further revision of the triage algorithms is needed.
机译:目的:目的是阐明是否通过严格应用适应性过程分类(ADAPT)量表,与按旧量表进行分类相比,参与注册护士(RNs)之间的人际协议是否有所增加,从而允许主观解释症状和体征。方法:在2006年,使用以前的分类标准对19例患者病例进行了分类,共45个RN,2008年使用ADAPT对30个病例进行了分类。结果:两个分诊量表在总体准确一致性水平上无显着差异(P = 0.65)(kappa值0.529 vs. 0.472)。与较早的分类等级相比,使用ADAPT系统时更经常选择相同的分类等级,使用ADAPT时,也减少了各个分类等级之间的分散。 ADAPT将八种(42%)患者情况分为不稳定和稳定两类,而采用较老的量表则分为11种(58%)。 ADAPT无法将十四种情况(74%)分配给已定义的分类级别。确定了此类分类决定的五个主要原因。结论:当使用ADAPT时,两个分类标准都显示出中等程度的总体一致性,而分类决策在多个分类级别之间的分散性下降了。尽管通过ADAPT进行视力分配的算法似乎定义明确,但是许多患者情况都被分为不稳定和稳定两种情况,因此被分配到各种分类级别。如果ADAPT用作安全的分类工具,且变量间差异较小,则需要进一步修改分类算法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号