Reliability of Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in Saudi Arabia

Mustafa Alquraini, Emad Awad, Ra'ed Hijazi, Mustafa Alquraini, Emad Awad, Ra'ed Hijazi

Abstract

Background: The Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is an integral part of the Canadian emergency medicine triaging system. There is growing interest and implementation of CTAS worldwide. However, little is known about its reliability outside Canada. The aim of this study was to determine the reliability agreement of CTAS in a tertiary care emergency center in Saudi Arabia.

Methods: Ten triage nurses (five senior and five junior nurses) utilized CTAS guidelines to independently assign a triage level for 160 real case-based scenarios. Quadratic weighted kappa statistics were used to measure raters' agreements.

Results: Raters provided 1600 triage category assignments to case scenarios for analysis. Intra-rater agreement was similar for both senior and junior nurses; for senior nurses (SN1) kappa 0.871 95 % CI (0.840-0.897), and for junior nurses (SN2) kappa 0.871 95 % CI (0.839-0.898). Inter-rater agreement for the SN1 versus SN2 nurses had statistically meaningful agreement across different triage levels (weighted kappa = 0.770) 95 % CI (0.742-0.797).

Conclusions: CTAS has good reliability among emergency department (ED) triage nurses in King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Saudi Arabia. The findings suggest that CTAS might be a reliable instrument when applied in countries outside Canada.

References

    1. Iserson KV, Moskop JC. Triage in medicine, part I: concept, history, and types. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):275–81. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.05.019.
    1. Hamamoto J, Yamase H, Yamase Y. Impacts of the introduction of a triage system in Japan: a time series study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2014;22(3):153–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2013.10.006.
    1. Moskop JC, Iserson KV. Triage in medicine, part II: underlying values and principles. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):282–7. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.07.012.
    1. Christ M, Grossmann F, Winter D, Bingisser R, Platz E. Modern triage in the emergency department. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(50):892–8.
    1. Rivers EP, Katranji M, Jaehne KA, Brown S, Abou Dagher G, Cannon C, Coba V. Early interventions in severe sepsis and septic shock: a review of the evidence one decade later. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(6):712–24.
    1. Qureshi NA. Triage systems: a review of the literature with reference to Saudi Arabia. East Mediterr Health J. 2010;16(6):690–8.
    1. Beveridge R, Clarke B, Janes L, Savage N, Thompson J, Dodd G. Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: implementation guidelines. CJEM. 1999;1(3 Suppl):002.
    1. Murray M, Bullard M, Grafstein E. CEDIS National Working Group. Revisions to the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale implementation guidelines. CJEM. 2004;6(6):421–7.
    1. Bullard MJ, Unger B, Spence J, Grafstein E. CTAS National Working Group. Revisions to the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale (CTAS) adult guidelines. CJEM. 2008;10(2):136–51.
    1. Bullard MJ, Chan T, Brayman C, Warren D, Musgrave E, Unger B. Revisions to the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale (CTAS) guidelines. CJEM. 2014;16:1–5.
    1. Dallaire C, Poitras J, Aubin K, Lavoie A, Moore L. Emergency department triage: do experienced nurses agree on triage scores? J Emerg Med. 2012;42(6):736–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.05.085.
    1. Jiménez JG, Murray MJ, Beveridge R, Pons JP, Cortés EA, Garrigós JB, Ferré MB. Implementation of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale (CTAS) in the principality of Andorra: can triage parameters serve as emergency department quality indicators? CJEM. 2003;5(5):315–22.
    1. Elkum NB, Barrett C, Al-Omran H. Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: implementation in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. BMC Emerg Med. 2011;11:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-227X-11-3.
    1. Wulp I. Reliability and validity of emergency department triage systems. 2010.
    1. Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London (UK): Chapman and Hall; 1991.
    1. Manos D, Petrie DA, Beveridge RC, Walter S, Ducharme J. Inter-observer agreement using the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale. CJEM. 2002;4(1):16–22.
    1. Beveridge R, Ducharme J, Janes L, Beaulieu S, Walter S. Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: interrater agreement. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;34(2):155–9. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70223-4.
    1. Dallaire C, Poitras J, Aubin K, Lavoie A, Moore L, Audet G. Interrater agreement of Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale scores assigned by base hospital and emergency department nurses. CJEM. 2010;12(1):45–9.
    1. Fernandes CM, McLeod S, Krause J, Shah A, Jewell J, Smith B, Rollins L. Reliability of the Canadian triage and acuity scale: interrater and intrarater agreement from a community and an academic emergency department. CJEM. 2013;15(4):227–32.
    1. Worster A, Sardo A, Eva K, Fernandes CM, Upadhye S. Triage tool inter-rater reliability: a comparison of live versus paper case scenarios. J Emerg Nurs. 2007;33(4):319–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2006.12.016.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel