P063: Is triage score a valid measure of emergency department case mix?

Introduction: In the Canadian province of Alberta, (pop. 4,227,879), the publicly-funded health care system uses the five level Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), to prioritize emergency department (ED) patients. Health system decision makers and policy makers currently use CTAS as an isolated...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Canadian journal of emergency medicine 2016-05, Vol.18 (S1), p.S99-S100
Hauptverfasser: Holroyd, B.R., Rosychuk, R.J., Jelinski, S., Bullard, M., McCabe, C., Rowe, B.H., Innes, G., Niu, S., Dean, S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page S100
container_issue S1
container_start_page S99
container_title Canadian journal of emergency medicine
container_volume 18
creator Holroyd, B.R.
Rosychuk, R.J.
Jelinski, S.
Bullard, M.
McCabe, C.
Rowe, B.H.
Innes, G.
Niu, S.
Dean, S.
description Introduction: In the Canadian province of Alberta, (pop. 4,227,879), the publicly-funded health care system uses the five level Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), to prioritize emergency department (ED) patients. Health system decision makers and policy makers currently use CTAS as an isolated metric to describe ED patient case-mix and to compare EDs. Methods: Using the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System dataset, we reviewed the distribution of patient CTAS scores and the proportion of inpatient admissions by CTAS level for the 16 highest volume Alberta hospital EDs during FY 2013/2014. Results: Collectively, the EDs received 1,027,976 patients, with 1%, 18%, 44%, 30% and 7% classified as CTAS 1-5, respectively. The proportions by CTAS level ranged from 0.2% to 2.8% in CTAS 1; 3.3% to 33.3% in CTAS 2; 29.1% to 54.1% in CTAS 3; 16.7% to 49.0% in CTAS 4; and 3.1% to 12.3% in CTAS 5. Admission proportions by CTAS level ranged from 43.9% to 75.2% in CTAS 1; 18.9% to 42.1% in CTAS 2; 5.4% to 24.7% in CTAS 3; 0.8% to 9.3% in CTAS 4; and 0.1% to 9.1% in CTAS 5. Conclusion: Inter-hospital differences in CTAS acuity distributions reflect triage variability and real differences in case-mix. Wide variation in admission proportions by CTAS level reflects differing admission thresholds between sites, but also suggest intra-level differences in patient severity, comorbidity and complexity. Triage levels cannot be used as an isolated metric to describe and compare ED case-mix. Further work is required to accurately characterize ED patient case-mix.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/cem.2016.239
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>cambridge_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_cem_2016_239</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_cem_2016_239</cupid><sourcerecordid>10_1017_cem_2016_239</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1149-39b26bf0ed3e0725a7dc78c64289dd18d99a1a0acf0bfc1f75b6e24da5aa8f7c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkM1KAzEUhYMoWKs7HyAP4Iy5yfxk3IgUrYWCLnQd7iQ3ZUrTKclU7Ns7xeLK1TkHzrlcPsZuQeQgoL63FHIpoMqlas7YBAoNmRaFOv_zqrxkVymthQBZgp6w-buo1ANfJD7EDlfEk-0jceRfuOkcD4RpP-becwoUV7S1B-5oh3EItB24xUQ8dN-P1-zC4ybRzUmn7PPl-WP2mi3f5ovZ0zKzAEWTqaaVVesFOUWiliXWztbaVoXUjXOgXdMgoEDrRest-LpsK5KFwxJR-9qqKbv7vWtjn1Ikb3axCxgPBoQ5QjAjBHOEYEYIYz0_1TG0sXMrMut-H7fji_8PfgBiPV6I</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>P063: Is triage score a valid measure of emergency department case mix?</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Holroyd, B.R. ; Rosychuk, R.J. ; Jelinski, S. ; Bullard, M. ; McCabe, C. ; Rowe, B.H. ; Innes, G. ; Niu, S. ; Dean, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Holroyd, B.R. ; Rosychuk, R.J. ; Jelinski, S. ; Bullard, M. ; McCabe, C. ; Rowe, B.H. ; Innes, G. ; Niu, S. ; Dean, S.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: In the Canadian province of Alberta, (pop. 4,227,879), the publicly-funded health care system uses the five level Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), to prioritize emergency department (ED) patients. Health system decision makers and policy makers currently use CTAS as an isolated metric to describe ED patient case-mix and to compare EDs. Methods: Using the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System dataset, we reviewed the distribution of patient CTAS scores and the proportion of inpatient admissions by CTAS level for the 16 highest volume Alberta hospital EDs during FY 2013/2014. Results: Collectively, the EDs received 1,027,976 patients, with 1%, 18%, 44%, 30% and 7% classified as CTAS 1-5, respectively. The proportions by CTAS level ranged from 0.2% to 2.8% in CTAS 1; 3.3% to 33.3% in CTAS 2; 29.1% to 54.1% in CTAS 3; 16.7% to 49.0% in CTAS 4; and 3.1% to 12.3% in CTAS 5. Admission proportions by CTAS level ranged from 43.9% to 75.2% in CTAS 1; 18.9% to 42.1% in CTAS 2; 5.4% to 24.7% in CTAS 3; 0.8% to 9.3% in CTAS 4; and 0.1% to 9.1% in CTAS 5. Conclusion: Inter-hospital differences in CTAS acuity distributions reflect triage variability and real differences in case-mix. Wide variation in admission proportions by CTAS level reflects differing admission thresholds between sites, but also suggest intra-level differences in patient severity, comorbidity and complexity. Triage levels cannot be used as an isolated metric to describe and compare ED case-mix. Further work is required to accurately characterize ED patient case-mix.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1481-8035</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1481-8043</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/cem.2016.239</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Posters Presentations</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2016-05, Vol.18 (S1), p.S99-S100</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holroyd, B.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosychuk, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jelinski, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bullard, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCabe, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowe, B.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Innes, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niu, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, S.</creatorcontrib><title>P063: Is triage score a valid measure of emergency department case mix?</title><title>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><description>Introduction: In the Canadian province of Alberta, (pop. 4,227,879), the publicly-funded health care system uses the five level Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), to prioritize emergency department (ED) patients. Health system decision makers and policy makers currently use CTAS as an isolated metric to describe ED patient case-mix and to compare EDs. Methods: Using the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System dataset, we reviewed the distribution of patient CTAS scores and the proportion of inpatient admissions by CTAS level for the 16 highest volume Alberta hospital EDs during FY 2013/2014. Results: Collectively, the EDs received 1,027,976 patients, with 1%, 18%, 44%, 30% and 7% classified as CTAS 1-5, respectively. The proportions by CTAS level ranged from 0.2% to 2.8% in CTAS 1; 3.3% to 33.3% in CTAS 2; 29.1% to 54.1% in CTAS 3; 16.7% to 49.0% in CTAS 4; and 3.1% to 12.3% in CTAS 5. Admission proportions by CTAS level ranged from 43.9% to 75.2% in CTAS 1; 18.9% to 42.1% in CTAS 2; 5.4% to 24.7% in CTAS 3; 0.8% to 9.3% in CTAS 4; and 0.1% to 9.1% in CTAS 5. Conclusion: Inter-hospital differences in CTAS acuity distributions reflect triage variability and real differences in case-mix. Wide variation in admission proportions by CTAS level reflects differing admission thresholds between sites, but also suggest intra-level differences in patient severity, comorbidity and complexity. Triage levels cannot be used as an isolated metric to describe and compare ED case-mix. Further work is required to accurately characterize ED patient case-mix.</description><subject>Posters Presentations</subject><issn>1481-8035</issn><issn>1481-8043</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkM1KAzEUhYMoWKs7HyAP4Iy5yfxk3IgUrYWCLnQd7iQ3ZUrTKclU7Ns7xeLK1TkHzrlcPsZuQeQgoL63FHIpoMqlas7YBAoNmRaFOv_zqrxkVymthQBZgp6w-buo1ANfJD7EDlfEk-0jceRfuOkcD4RpP-becwoUV7S1B-5oh3EItB24xUQ8dN-P1-zC4ybRzUmn7PPl-WP2mi3f5ovZ0zKzAEWTqaaVVesFOUWiliXWztbaVoXUjXOgXdMgoEDrRest-LpsK5KFwxJR-9qqKbv7vWtjn1Ikb3axCxgPBoQ5QjAjBHOEYEYIYz0_1TG0sXMrMut-H7fji_8PfgBiPV6I</recordid><startdate>201605</startdate><enddate>201605</enddate><creator>Holroyd, B.R.</creator><creator>Rosychuk, R.J.</creator><creator>Jelinski, S.</creator><creator>Bullard, M.</creator><creator>McCabe, C.</creator><creator>Rowe, B.H.</creator><creator>Innes, G.</creator><creator>Niu, S.</creator><creator>Dean, S.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201605</creationdate><title>P063: Is triage score a valid measure of emergency department case mix?</title><author>Holroyd, B.R. ; Rosychuk, R.J. ; Jelinski, S. ; Bullard, M. ; McCabe, C. ; Rowe, B.H. ; Innes, G. ; Niu, S. ; Dean, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1149-39b26bf0ed3e0725a7dc78c64289dd18d99a1a0acf0bfc1f75b6e24da5aa8f7c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Posters Presentations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holroyd, B.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosychuk, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jelinski, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bullard, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCabe, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rowe, B.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Innes, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niu, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holroyd, B.R.</au><au>Rosychuk, R.J.</au><au>Jelinski, S.</au><au>Bullard, M.</au><au>McCabe, C.</au><au>Rowe, B.H.</au><au>Innes, G.</au><au>Niu, S.</au><au>Dean, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>P063: Is triage score a valid measure of emergency department case mix?</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><date>2016-05</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>S99</spage><epage>S100</epage><pages>S99-S100</pages><issn>1481-8035</issn><eissn>1481-8043</eissn><abstract>Introduction: In the Canadian province of Alberta, (pop. 4,227,879), the publicly-funded health care system uses the five level Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), to prioritize emergency department (ED) patients. Health system decision makers and policy makers currently use CTAS as an isolated metric to describe ED patient case-mix and to compare EDs. Methods: Using the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System dataset, we reviewed the distribution of patient CTAS scores and the proportion of inpatient admissions by CTAS level for the 16 highest volume Alberta hospital EDs during FY 2013/2014. Results: Collectively, the EDs received 1,027,976 patients, with 1%, 18%, 44%, 30% and 7% classified as CTAS 1-5, respectively. The proportions by CTAS level ranged from 0.2% to 2.8% in CTAS 1; 3.3% to 33.3% in CTAS 2; 29.1% to 54.1% in CTAS 3; 16.7% to 49.0% in CTAS 4; and 3.1% to 12.3% in CTAS 5. Admission proportions by CTAS level ranged from 43.9% to 75.2% in CTAS 1; 18.9% to 42.1% in CTAS 2; 5.4% to 24.7% in CTAS 3; 0.8% to 9.3% in CTAS 4; and 0.1% to 9.1% in CTAS 5. Conclusion: Inter-hospital differences in CTAS acuity distributions reflect triage variability and real differences in case-mix. Wide variation in admission proportions by CTAS level reflects differing admission thresholds between sites, but also suggest intra-level differences in patient severity, comorbidity and complexity. Triage levels cannot be used as an isolated metric to describe and compare ED case-mix. Further work is required to accurately characterize ED patient case-mix.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/cem.2016.239</doi><tpages>2</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1481-8035
ispartof Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2016-05, Vol.18 (S1), p.S99-S100
issn 1481-8035
1481-8043
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_cem_2016_239
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Posters Presentations
title P063: Is triage score a valid measure of emergency department case mix?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T16%3A26%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-cambridge_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=P063:%20Is%20triage%20score%20a%20valid%20measure%20of%20emergency%20department%20case%20mix?&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Holroyd,%20B.R.&rft.date=2016-05&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=S99&rft.epage=S100&rft.pages=S99-S100&rft.issn=1481-8035&rft.eissn=1481-8043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/cem.2016.239&rft_dat=%3Ccambridge_cross%3E10_1017_cem_2016_239%3C/cambridge_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_cem_2016_239&rfr_iscdi=true