Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27756416›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2016

Agreement between triage category and patient's perception of priority in emergency departments.

Ghasem-Sam Toloo, Peter Aitken, Julia Crilly, Gerry FitzGerald

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Beyond a Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study Exploring Patient and Caregiver Expectations About Emergency Department Visits Amid Uncertainty.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Characterizing Spanish-speaking patients' patient-centered care experiences in the emergency department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
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

4 authors.

Ghasem-Sam TolooSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia. sam.toloo@qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5694-288X
Peter AitkenTownsville Hospital Emergency Department, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia.
Julia CrillyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Menzies Health Institute, Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, 1 Hospital Boulevard, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
Gerry FitzGeraldSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients attending hospital emergency departments (ED) commonly cite the urgency and severity of their condition as the main reason for choosing the ED. However, the patients' perception of urgency and severity may be different to the nurses' perception of their urgency and severity, which is underpinned by their professional experience, knowledge, training and skills. This discordance may be a cause of patient dissatisfaction. The purpose of this study is to understand the extent of agreement/disagreement between the patient's perceived priority and actual triage category and associated factors.

methodsA cross-sectional survey of 417 patients attending eight public hospital EDs in Queensland, Australia between March and May 2011 was conducted. The survey included patient's perceived priority and other health-related, socio-demographic and perceptual factors. Patients' triage category data were retrieved from their ED records and linked back to their survey data. Descriptive and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used.

resultsOver 48 % of the respondents expected to be given higher priority than the actual triage category they were assigned; 31 % had their perceived priority matched with the triage category; and 20 % of the respondents expected a lower priority than the triage category they received (Kappa 0.07, p < 0.01). Patients who expected a higher priority tended to be more frequent users (≥3 times in the past six months), and to score higher on perceived seriousness, perceived urgency, and pain score compared to the patients whose perceived priority matched the triage category or anticipated a lower priority. In the multivariate analysis, only perceived urgency remained significantly associated with expected higher priority (OR = 1.27, 95 % CI: 1.14-1.43). DISCUSSION: Our findings clearly confirmed the discrepancy between patient perception of urgency and staff assessment of urgency. This can have important implications particularly for the patients who underrate the urgency of their condition. Improved and open communication and the incorporation of the 'patient voice' into the triage process require understanding the patient's perspectives and their involvement in the decision making process.

conclusionsNoted differences between patient and practitioner perception of clinical urgency were identifed in this study.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEmergency Service, HospitalQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMalePatient PreferencePatient SatisfactionQueenslandTriageEmergency departmentInter-rater agreementPatient perceptionPerceived priorityTriage

Identifiers

PMID27756416
PMCPMC5070359

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.