www.uhasselt.be
DSpace

Document Server@UHasselt >
Research >
Research publications >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/18081

Title: Evaluating implementation of the emergency severity index in a Belgian hospital
Authors: BERGS, Jochen
Verelst, Sandra
Gillet, Jean-Bernard
VANDIJCK, Dominique
Issue Date: 2014
Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Citation: JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY NURSING, 40 (6), p. 592-597
Abstract: Introduction: Triage aims to categorize patients based on their clinical need and the available departmental resources. To accomplish this goal, one needs to ensure that the implemented triage system is reliable and that staff use it correctly. Therefore this study assessed the ability of Belgium nurses to apply the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), version 4, to hypothetical case scenarios after an educational intervention. Methods: An ESI educational intervention was implemented in accordance with the ESI manual. Using paper case scenarios, nurses' interrater agreement was assessed by comparing triage nurse ESI levels with the reference answers noted in the implementation manual. Interrater agreement was measured by the percentage of agreement and Cohen's. coefficient using different weighting schemes. Results: Overall, 77.5% of the scenario cases were coded according the ESI guidelines, resulting in a good interrater agreement (kappa = 0.72, linear weighted kappa = 0.84, quadratic weighted kappa = 0.92, and triage-weighted scheme = 0.79). Interrater agreement varied when evaluating each ESI level separately. Undertriage was more common than overtriage. The highest misclassification range (37.8%) occurred in ESI level 2 scenarios, with 99.2% of the misclassifications being undertriaged. Discussion: Implementation of the ESI into a novel setting guided by a locally developed training program resulted in suboptimal interrater agreement. Existing weighted. schemes overestimated the interrater agreement between the triage nurse-assigned ESI level and the reference standard. By providing an aggregated measure of agreement, which allows partial agreement, clinically significant misclassification was masked by a misleading "good" interrater agreement.
Notes: [Bergs, Jochen; Vandijck, Dominique] Hasselt Univ, Fac Business Econ, Patient Safety Res Grp, Hasselt, Belgium. [Verelst, Sandra; Gillet, Jean-Bernard] Leuven Univ Hosp, Dept Emergency Med, Leuven, Belgium. [Vandijck, Dominique] Univ Ghent, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Publ Hlth & Hlth Econ, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/18081
DOI: 10.1016/j.jen.2014.01.006
ISI #: 000345445200019
ISSN: 0099-1767
Category: A1
Type: Journal Contribution
Validation: ecoom, 2015
Appears in Collections: Research publications

Files in This Item:

Description SizeFormat
published version106.01 kBAdobe PDF

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.