Search

Introduction: It is unclear whether the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) can identify high-risk patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). This study aims to compare the mistriage rates of the ESI plus the Peak Expiratory Flowmeter (PEF) approach and ESI approach among dyspneic patients with COPD. Methods: This study was a randomized clinical trial conducted between July and October 2018. We randomly assigned COPD patients with dyspnea to the ESI + PEF or ESI groups. Triage levels, disposition rates, number of resources used, and time to first physician contact were compared in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), the Pulmonary Care Unit (PU), or discharged from the ED. Reliability of the ESI was evaluated by using the interobserver agreement (Kappa). Results: Seventy COPD patients were equally assigned to the ESI + PEF and ESI groups. The under-triage rates were 11.42% and 0%, the over-triage rates were 31.42% and 2.85% in the ESI and ESI + PEF groups, respectively. The triage levels of the patients admitted to the ICU (2 vs. 3), the PU (2 vs. 4), or discharged from the ED (3 vs. 2) were significantly different between the ESI + PEF and ESI groups. Conclusions: Addition of PEF to the ESI provides a more accurate method for triaging COPD patients compared to ESI alone. We recommend using PEF for the triage of COPD patients in the ED. Keywords: Dyspnea, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Triage, Emergency severity index, Emergency

Background: Although the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) have been developed since two decades ago, the reliability of the CTAS has not been questioned comparing to moderating variable. Aims: The study was to provide a meta-analytic review of the reliability of the CTAS in order to reveal to what extent the CTAS is reliable. Materials and Methods: Electronic databases were searched to March 2014. Only studies were included that had reported samples size, reliability coefficients, adequate description of the CTAS reliability assessment. The guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were used. Two reviewers independently examined abstracts and extracted data. The effect size was obtained by the z-transformation of reliability coefficients. Data were pooled with random-effects models and meta-regression was done based on method of moments estimator. Results: Fourteen studies were included. Pooled coefficient for the CTAS was substantial 0.672 (CI 95%: 0.599-0.735). Mistriage is less than 50%. Agreement upon the adult version, among nurse-physician and near countries is higher than pediatrics version, other raters and farther countries, respectively. Conclusion: The CTAS showed acceptable level of overall reliability in the emergency department but need more development to reach almost perfect agreement.