ArticleCureus2023
Healthcare Workers' Assessment of a Visual Triage System (VTS).
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Overcrowding and extended waiting times in the emergency department (ED) can pose a significant risk of COVID-19 transmission from patients to healthy individuals. In 2017, the Saudi Ministry of Health (MOH) introduced a visual triage system (VTS) with scoring to notify healthcare workers (HCWs) in EDs about the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection risk. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the MOH employed a VTS to classify patients according to their potential risk of COVID-19 infection upon their admission to the ED. Suspected patients were then directed along specific pathways to reduce their contact with healthy individuals. This study assessed HCWs' satisfaction with the VTS in the ED of two major government hospitals within the Riyadh region. Additionally, it assessed HCWs' perceptions of VTS effectiveness. This study used a cross-sectional, observational design and relied on surveys for data collection. A total of 127 participants completed the survey, of which 87 (68.5%) were based in the EDs of the two hospitals. Among the ED participants, 18.1% expressed satisfaction with the VTS, 46.4% were neutral, and 33.1% reported dissatisfaction. ED participants provided feedback on the system's effectiveness, with 24.1% finding it effective, 66.7% considering it somewhat effective, and 9.2% deeming it ineffective. Of the total (127) study participants (70.1%) reported that the HCWs required better training to effectively implement the VTS infection control plans for suspected cases. Fewer than half of the participants (35.4%) deemed the time spent by VTS personnel to identify COVID-19 cases to be reasonable, whereas 22% found it too short and 27.6% considered it too long. Of the total 127 participants, 63% reported that language differences between patients and HCWs constituted barriers to the effective application of the VTS. Our study findings indicated that most ED participants had a neutral outlook on their satisfaction with the VTS and a neutral perspective on the effectiveness of VTS, viewing it as only somewhat effective. Reported weaknesses and key obstacles to the successful implementation of the VTS included language barriers. and insufficient training for HCWs, and unclear VTS pathways. The reported strengths of the VTS included its effectiveness in reducing crowds and identification of COVID-19 patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.