ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
The triage performance of emergency medical dispatch prioritisation compared to prehospital on-scene triage in the Western Cape Province of South Africa.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A classification model for the telephonic triage of low acuity abdominal complaints in South Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026Article
- Multi-method approach to the development of contextual telephone triage systems.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026Article
- Leadership-Driven Development of a National Emergency Medical Dispatch and Triage Protocol in Thailand: An Electronic Delphi Expert Consensus.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe emergency medical service (EMS) response is dependent on the emergency medical dispatch (EMD) and the operations response team to ensure that the patient receives the required EMS resources and treatment in the appropriate time. EMS resources must be dispatched to calls of appropriate patient acuity. Overtriage and undertriage impact the appropriate response and optimization of EMS resources and, most importantly, patient outcomes. This study examines overtriage and undertriage rates in ambulance dispatch operations in the Western Cape Government (WCG), South Africa.
aimDetermine undertriage and overtriage rates of EMD priority allocation compared to on-scene ambulance triage.
methodsThis was a retrospective descriptive study conducted with data received separately for dispatching emergency calls through computer-aided dispatch records and triage information from electronic patient care records. The data were derived from 1
resultsA total of 242,576 primary emergency responses were analysed. Overall, the overtriage rate was 62.28% (95% CI: 61.94%-62.63%), and the undertriage rate was 15.29% (95% CI: 15.10%-15.47%). The sensitivity was 53.71% (95% CI: 53.29%-54.13%), and the specificity was 74.31% (95% CI: 74.11%-74.51%). The incident types with the highest overtriage rates were obstetric (89%) and gynaecological (86%) complaints and allergic reactions (79%); while the incident types with the highest undertriage rates were respiratory complaints (31%), diabetes (30%), and chest pain (29%).
conclusionThis study revealed substantial overtriage and undertriage across all incident types. The results of this study provide a good reference point for future comparisons of triage rates in the Western Cape. It can be used to inform the development of policies, processes, guidelines, triage and training in dispatching systems, which may contribute to the optimization of prehospital resource management and patient care.
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.