This pilot study was carried out to determine whether converting from a two-tier to a three-tier in-hospital trauma triage system improves the efficiency of emergency department (ED) care and minimizes inappropriate triage. Patients at an urban, Level 1 trauma centre were triaged using either a two-tier (months 1-3; n = 197) or three-tier (months 4-6; n = 240) trauma response system. Patients were assessed for triage type, age, sex, injury severity score, Glasgow coma score, post-ED disposition, total ED time, survival, complication rate, probability of survival and unexpected death. Comparisons were made by ANOVA table analysis; significance was assumed for p < 0.05. Two-tier (n = 197) and three-tier patients (n = 240) were matched with respect to mean age, sex, mean injury severity score, mean Glasgow coma score, post-ED disposition, survival and probability of survival. Two-tier patients were triaged to give 20% alerts [criteria = physiological derangement (PD) and/or injury mechanism (MOI)] and 80% consults; three-tier patients were triaged as 20% category I (criteria = PD), 18% category II (criteria = MOI) and 62% consults. Total ED time decreased from two-tier (3.98 +/- 2.81 h) to three-tier triage (3.53 +/- 2.14 h, p = 0.001). There was no difference between two-tier alert and three-tier category I times (2.09 +/- 1.64 vs. 1.95 +/- 1.75 h; p = 0.72). Category II patients (3.28 +/- 1.98 h; p = 0.009) spent less time in the ED than did two-tier consults (4.36 +/- 2.65 h). The mean ED three-tier consult time significantly decreased as well (3.95 +/- 2.42 h, p = 0.008 vs. two-tier consult). Complications per patient were unchanged from two-tier to three-tier triage (0.17 +/- 0.52 vs. 0.12 +/- 0.48; p = 0.15). Under-triage (5%) and over-triage (7.5%) were minimal under three-tier triage. It is concluded that using a three-tier triage system results in an increase in the early involvement of the trauma service while decreasing emergency department time and minimizing over-triage.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,215,776
of 27,780,120 outputs
Outputs from Injury
#484
of 3,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,897
of 32,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,780,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 32,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
