Original Contributions
Effect of vital signs on triage decisions*,**,*

Presented at the third annual Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Western Regional Research Forum, Portland, OR, May 2000.
https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2002.121524Get rights and content

Abstract

Study Objective: We sought to determine whether knowledge of vital signs changes nurse triage designations (TDs). We also sought to determine whether patient age and ability to communicate modify the effect of vital signs on triage decisions. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study, in 24 emergency departments, of nurse-assigned TDs of all ED patients undergoing triage. Nurses performed their typical triage routine, except that they chose 1 of 5 hypothetical TDs (call 911, ED <2 hours, physician's office 2 to 8 hours, physician's office 8 to 24 hours, or home care) before and after measurement of vital signs. The main outcome measure was the change of TD after knowledge of a patient's vital signs, with stratification on the basis of patient age and communication barriers. The secondary outcome was the final ED disposition. Results: Six hundred twenty-five experienced triage nurses at 24 different EDs collected data on 14,285 patients. TDs were downgraded (decreased in urgency) in 2.4% of patients, and 5.5% were upgraded (increased in urgency) after vital signs were known. Changes were more likely to occur in the young (≤2 years old; 11.4%) and the elderly (≥75 years old; 9.9%) than in those 3 to 74 years of age (7.5%). When nurses reported a communication barrier, a change in post-vital signs TD was also more common (11.2% versus 7.7%). The post-vital signs TD better predicted patient ED disposition. Conclusion: In this sample, 92.1% of the nurses' TDs were not affected by the knowledge of patient vital signs. For the other 7.9%, including many patients from vulnerable populations, the vital signs changed the nurses' assessments of the patients' triage designation. Methods of triage that do not determine vital signs may not adequately reflect the urgency of the patient's presentation. [Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Flaherty HL, Lin EJ, Hubbell KA. Effect of vital signs on triage decisions. Ann Emerg Med. March 2002;39:223-232.]

Introduction

Most health care visits begin with medical data acquisition by someone other than the principal practitioner. This initial pre-encounter typically garners some combination of chief complaint, recent history, vital signs, and limited physical examination. These elements are collected to expedite the subsequent provider encounter, archive vital statistics (eg, blood pressure, weight, tobacco use), and assign a severity rating so that the order (and in some cases the setting) in which patients are seen can be determined (triage). There are hundreds of millions of such pre-encounters annually in the United States, but less than 15,000 of them have been formally studied.1, 9 We know very little about the importance of each data element to the process. We know more about the importance of checking smoking status than we do about the importance of obtaining vital signs.10, 11

In this article, we examine the use of the pre-encounter for the purpose of triage. The few existing studies demonstrate that in-person triage is highly subjective; has low interrater reliability among nurse, physician, and computer-aided methods; and is not particularly adept at identifying those who will be admitted to the hospital.1, 5 Because some popular triage instruments do not uniformly use vital signs and because telephone triage cannot use vital signs, we sought to examine how vital signs inform the triage decision.

Our objectives were to determine whether knowledge of vital signs changes nurse triage designations (TDs) and whether patient age and ability to communicate modify the effect of vital signs on triage decisions. We had several a priori hypotheses. First, we believed that knowledge of vital signs would lead to more changes in TD in the very young (≤2 years old) and the elderly (≥75 years old) than in those 3 to 74 years of age. Second, we believed that vital signs would be more likely to inform triage decisions (and thus produce greater changes in TD) in patients who had difficulty communicating because of a language barrier, thought disorder, or neurologic condition. Third, we believed that TDs made after obtaining vital signs would better predict patient disposition than designations made before obtaining vital signs.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective, multisite, observational study of patients presenting to 24 US emergency departments between July and November 1998. We recruited sites by means of personal correspondence with physicians and nurses and a notice placed in a California emergency medicine newsletter. Sites were eligible if they had a designated triage area in the ED, triage nurses defined by their experience or training, and logs from which patient age, sex, and disposition could be abstracted. Each

Results

The 24 participating EDs included community, urban, teaching, public, and private facilities. Sixteen hospitals were in California, 2 in Arizona, and 1 each in North Carolina, New York, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, and Hawaii. Together, the facilities treat 981,000 patients annually (median 36,800; range 17,000 to 87,760).

Data collection occurred over a period of 7 to 13 days at each study site; 17 of the 24 hospitals completed the study in the planned 10 days. The study hospitals saw 26,479

Discussion

In this study of more than 14,000 patients, knowledge of vital signs led nurses to revise 8% of the TDs they had made based only on intake history, visual cues, and limited physical examination. Seventy percent of these 1,130 changes were to a more urgent level of care. For at least some of these patients, the upgrades may be of clinical consequence. Of greatest concern is that our hypotheses proved true; vulnerable populations (the very young, the elderly, and those with communication

Acknowledgements

We thank all of the hospitals, physicians, nurses, and staff who helped collect data for this project. Specifically, we would like to thank the coordinators for the Vital Signs in Triage Decisions Investigative Group, including John Lynn, MD, and Linda Lawson, RN, MSN, from Antelope Valley Hospital; Larry Levine, MD, and Kelly Solomon, RN, BSN, from Bristol Hospital; Eric D. Salk, MD, MPH, and Kayleen Bastiaanse, RN, from Charlotte Hungerford Hospital; Scott Chamberlain, MD, and Diane Greene,

References (16)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

*

Dr. Cooper was supported in part by National Research Service Award F32 HS00134-01 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Dr. Schriger was supported in part by an unrestricted gift to support health services research from the MedAmerica Corporation.

**

Reprints not available from the authors. Address for correspondence: Richelle J. Cooper, MD, MSHS, 924 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90024; 310-794-0583, fax 310-794-0599; E-mail: [email protected]

*

Author contributions are provided at the end of this article. Author contributions: RJC, HLF, EJL, and KAH contributed to the acquisition of data (data management). RJC, DLS, and EJL contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. RJC drafted the original manuscript, and RJC and DLS provided critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and statistical expertise. KAH provided administrative and technical support. RJC supervised research staff, and DLS supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. DLS participated in the revision of the initial drafts. All authors participated in the editing of draft manuscripts and approval of the final work. RJC and DLS take responsibility for the article as a whole.

View full text