Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22040017›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2011

Be careful with triage in emergency departments: interobserver agreement on 1,578 patients in France.

Anne-Claire Durand, Stéphanie Gentile, Patrick Gerbeaux, Marc Alazia, Pierre Kiegel, Stephane Luigi, Eric Lindenmeyer, Philippe Olivier, Marie-Annick Hidoux, Roland Sambuc

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Factors associated with hospital revisitation within 7 days among patients discharged at triage: a case-control study.European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Anne-Claire DurandLaboratoire de Santé Publique, Faculté de Médecine, Equipe de recherche EA 3279 Evaluation hospitalière-Mesure de la santé perçue, Marseille, France. anne-claire.durand@ap-hm.fr
Stéphanie Gentile
Patrick Gerbeaux
Marc Alazia
Pierre Kiegel
Stephane Luigi
Eric Lindenmeyer
Philippe Olivier
Marie-Annick Hidoux
Roland Sambuc

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor several decades, emergency departments (EDs) utilization has increased, inducing ED overcrowding in many countries. This phenomenon is related partly to an excessive number of nonurgent patients. To resolve ED overcrowding and to decrease nonurgent visits, the most common solution has been to triage the ED patients to identify potentially nonurgent patients, i.e. which could have been dealt with by general practitioner. The objective of this study was to measure agreement among ED health professionals on the urgency of an ED visit, and to determine if the level of agreement is consistent among different sub-groups based on following explicit criteria: age, medical status, type of referral to the ED, investigations performed in the ED, and the discharge from the ED.

methodsWe conducted a multicentric cross-sectional study to compare agreement between nurses and physicians on categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent. Subgroups stratified by criteria characterizing the ED visit were analyzed in relation to the outcome of the visit.

resultsOf 1,928 ED patients, 350 were excluded because data were lacking. The overall nurse-physician agreement on categorization was moderate (kappa = 0.43). The levels of agreement within all subgroups were variable and low. The highest agreement concerned three subgroups of complaints: cranial injury (kappa = 0.61), gynaecological (kappa = 0.66) and toxicology complaints (kappa = 1.00). The lowest agreement concerned two subgroups: urinary-nephrology (kappa = 0.09) and hospitalization (kappa = 0.20). When categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent cases was compared to hospitalization, ED physicians had higher sensitivity and specificity than nurses (respectively 94.9% versus 89.5%, and 43.1% versus 30.9%).

conclusionsThe lack of physician-nurse agreement and the inability to predict hospitalization have important implications for patient safety. When urgency screening is used to determine treatment priority, disagreement might not matter because all patients in the ED are seen and treated. But using assessments as the basis for refusal of care to potential nonurgent patients raises legal, ethical, and safety issues. Managed care organizations should be cautious when applying such criteria to restrict access to EDs.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEmergenciesEmergency NursingFemaleFranceHospitalizationHospitals, RuralHospitals, TeachingHospitals, UrbanHumansMaleMedical Staff, Hospital

Identifiers

PMID22040017
PMCPMC3215166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.