Observational studyJournal of clinical nursing2026
Comparing Safety and Accuracy of Standardised Versus Subjective Triage Code Assignment by Nurses: A Multicenter Observational Simulated Study.
Observational study in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing Safety and Accuracy of Standardised Versus Subjective Triage Code Assignment by Nurses: A Multicenter Observational Simulated Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
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
backgroundStandardised triage systems have been in place for decades with minor modifications, while nurses' skills and knowledge have significantly advanced.
aimTo determine whether nurses' clinical expertise outperforms triage systems in simulated clinical cases.
designA multicenter simulated observational study.
methodsThe study was conducted from January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024, in four Italian emergency departments, enrolling triage-performing nurses. Thirty clinical cases, based on real patients representing daily emergency department influx, were reconstructed. The primary outcome was the agreement between the triage code assigned by the Manchester Triage System and the code assigned based on clinical expertise. The secondary outcome compared the predictive ability of the codes assigned by nurses regarding clinical outcomes, such as death within 72 h, the need for hospitalisation, and the need for life-saving intervention. The study was reported in accordance with the STROBE statement.
resultsSeventy-seven triage nurses completed the 30 vignettes. The agreement between the MTS-assigned code and the clinical expertise triage reported a Cohen's kappa of 0.576 (95% CI: 0.564-0.598). For death within 72 h, the clinical expertise code reported better results than the Manchester Triage System. For life-saving interventions, the Manchester Triage System reported a lower performance than clinical expertise. The variability in triage code assignment was higher for clinical expertise compared to the Manchester Triage System.
conclusionsTriage codes assigned by nurses based on clinical expertise perform better in terms of clinical outcomes, suggesting a need to update triage systems to incorporate nurses' knowledge and skills. However, standardised triage systems should be maintained to reduce variability and ensure consistent patient classification. REPORTING
methodThe study was conducted and reported according to the STROBE statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.