Comparison of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Taiwan Triage System in Predicting Resource Utilization

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Comparison of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Taiwan Triage System in Predicting Resource Utilization Chih-Hsien Chi, 1 * Chen-Mao Huang 1,2 Background/Purpose: The importance of accurate triage in Taiwan is becoming more apparent with the increasing number of emergency department (ED) patients, and resources for the National Health Insurance becoming constrained. This study compared the ability of the Taiwan triage system (TTS) and the standardized 5-level Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage system to predict ED resource utilization. Methods: Patients arriving at the ED were triaged by both TTS and by using a two-page checklist of ESI criteria during the 3-month study period. The ESI triage level was calculated independently to avoid bias. Disease category (trauma vs. nontrauma), length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization data were evaluated. Results: A total of 3172 patients with both ESI and TWN evaluation were included. The distributions of ESI ratings within TTS level 1 were: ESI 1, 21.1%; ESI 2, 68.1%; ESI 3, 7.4%; ESI 4, 3.4%; ESI 5, 0%. For TTS level 3, they were: ESI 1, 0.1%; ESI 2, 26.2%; ESI 3, 39.5%; ESI 4, 27.5%; ESI 5, 6.8%. Hospitalization rates were 74.5%, 40.9% and 22.2% in TTS levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively; and were 96.2%, 47.0%, 30.9%, 6.7% and 6.6% in ESI levels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. TTS triaged more trauma patients as life-threatening/ emergent condition than nontrauma patients (68.8% vs. 48.4%, p < 0.001). Triage by ESI, however, showed no significant difference in the percentage of trauma and nontrauma patients with highly acute conditions (44.2% vs. 46.6%, p = 0.230). Patients with ESI level 4 or 5 have significantly shorter ED LOS than those with ESI level 3. Conclusion: ESI produces more accurate discriminating patient acuity, ED LOS and hospitalization rate than TTS. Adopting a standardized 5-level triage tool might improve resource utilization planning of ED practice. [J Formos Med Assoc 2006;105(8):617 625] Key Words: emergency department, emergency severity index, triage Triage is the initial clinical assessment process that sorts patients prior to full emergency department (ED) diagnosis and treatment. 1 The goals of triage are to rapidly identify those requiring immediate medical care and those who cannot wait before being evaluated and treated. Triage is essential to determine the most appropriate treatment areas for patients presenting to the ED. 2 4 The ideal triage scale will be the first step toward performance measurement in the ED. 5 Several triage systems, including 3-, 4- and 5-category level (L) models, are in widespread use. 6 9 In Taiwan, a 4-L triage category guideline for EDs has been adopted by the Department of Health and National Health Insurance (NHI) system. All major EDs in Taiwan use nurse triage at the point of first patient contact. ED triage categories used in this guideline include life-threatening, emergent, urgent (prompt care 2006 Elsevier & Formosan Medical Association....................................................... 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, and 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Chia-Li General Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan. Received: May 2, 2005 Revised: June 2, 2005 Accepted: February 7, 2006 *Correspondence to: Dr Chih-Hsien Chi, Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, 138, Sheng-Li Road, Tainan 704, Taiwan. E-mail: chich@mail.ncku.edu.tw J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8 617

C.H. Chi, C.M. Huang but can wait) and nonurgent (attention required but not time critical). Treatment acuities for these categories are immediate for life-threatening, within 10 minutes for emergent, within 30 minutes for urgent, and delay or refer to the outpatient department (OPD) for nonurgent. These triage categories are not only used for clinical assessment but also used for payment of insurance premiums. It is necessary to evaluate a triage system to demonstrate that its use is clinically beneficial and cost-effective. 3 Recent studies indicate that a 5-L triage system provides greater discrimination, better reliability, and improved sensitivity and specificity than a 3-L triage system. 8,10,11 The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) is a prospectively developed 5-L triage instrument that has been validated and shown to be reliable for ED triage prioritization. 12 16 ESI 1 and 2 patients are considered to be patients who cannot wait at triage. ESI 1 patients are apneic, intubated or unresponsive. ESI 2 patients have high-risk conditions with confused, lethargic, or disoriented state, or in severe pain/ distress. Patients with ESI 3 5 are considered potentially able to wait, unless they begin to manifest vital sign abnormalities that would move them up a category. There is no distinction of how long patients in each level could/should wait. Once the level classification is assigned, patients may then be further ordered in terms of the type and quantity of how many resources they will require in their ED care. Studies of ESI have demonstrated its value for predicting ED resource use, hospitalization rates, location of admission and also 6-month survival. 12 16 The Taiwan Triage System (TTS) is based on concise set criteria for major complaints or conditions. Objective data including some vital and clinical signs are used for some criteria. There are 24 criteria for level 1 (life-threatening), 15 for level 2 (emergent) and nine for level 3 (urgent). Pediatric patients are triaged with some modifications. Previous studies indicated lack of nurse physician agreement on the current Taiwan triage categorization. 17 The level of interobserver agreement was not consistent across all illness categories. Seniority of staff members also affected triage classification. 18 Although the TTS was designed to be a 4-L system, the criteria of level 4 were based on exclusion, with patients in level 4 advised to visit the OPD. According to NHI regulations, level 4 patients should also pay higher ED fees. In practice, however, patients are almost always classified as levels 1 3, effectively resulting in a 3-L triage system in daily practice, even if a patient s condition is neither urgent nor emergent. The importance of accurate triage is becoming more apparent as ED patient volumes in- crease, and NHI resources become increasingly constrained. However, very few attempts have been made to predict admissions, resource utilization and management of flow using the Taiwan triage criteria. As EDs face challenges including increasing patient volume, increasing number of patients with active conditions and enormous pressure to control costs, development of a triage system that accurately meets these objectives is imperative. 4 This study compared the ability of the TTS and ESI, a well-evaluated triage tool, to predict ED resource utilization. Methods Study design and population This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted from April 1, 2001 to June 28, 2001 at an urban university teaching hospital with an annual volume of 58,000 visits. The ED at the study hospital is divided into three components: general adult, pediatrics and trauma. This study included only general adult and trauma patients, and was performed in accordance with the hospital s institutional review board requirements. Study protocol All patients arriving in the ED were triaged by nurses using both TTS and ESI criteria. Triage nurses completed a data form for each patient triaged during the study period. The triage nurses had at least 2 years of experience in the ED and were judged by the authors to have the ability to accurately prioritize care requirements and assign patients to 618 J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8

Emergency department triage appropriate areas. They were given a two-page table that contained the checklists of statements used for both the ESI and TTS, and were asked to assign a TTS level based on the information in the sheet. In addition, the triage nurses also recorded whether the patient s condition or complaints were identical or very similar to the descriptions listed in the TTS. Vital signs including temperature, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, Glasgow Coma Scale and oxygen saturation were also recorded. In this study, the ESI algorithm version 2 was transformed into a specific statement checklist rather than appearing to triage nurses in algorithm format. The triage nurse marked each statement as yes or no according to the patients conditions. The following items were included in the checklist: Intubated/apneic/pulseless? Unresponsive? Highrisk situation? Confused/lethargic/disoriented? Severe pain/distress? How many different resources (lab, X-ray, injection, procedure, consultation) are required? (none, one, two or more); heart rate >100; respiratory rate >20; SaO 2 <92%. As use of a 5-L triage system is not routine practice in Taiwan EDs, there was concern that using a full triage algorithm would affect the triage nurses interpretation of the TTS triage level. Therefore, the ESI level was not calculated by the triage staff but was independently assessed by one of our researchers. Thus, the nurses did not use ESI as a triage or judgment or reference tool for further management. Patients were managed according to the level of acuity of their conditions as defined by the TTS. Age, sex, disease type (trauma vs. nontrauma), length of stay (LOS, in hours) and characteristics of hospitalization (admission, discharge, transfer, against advice discharge, death, sneak away, observation with LOS > 24 hours) were determined from hospital computerized registration records. As the nurses could not always complete the forms due to the high patient loads in the ED, there were occasions when patient enrollment was not possible. Statistical analysis Data were analyzed using triage level as the independent variable. Descriptive statistics for hospitalization variables were analyzed. Patients who left the ED against medical advice (including discharge due to critical condition), or who were transferred to another hospital, or were discharged from the ED after LOS > 24 hours for observation, and/or died in the ED were considered as hospitalized patients. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine mean differences among patients grouped by two triage criteria for LOS in the ED. Post hoc comparisons were conducted using Scheffe s post hoc tests. The χ 2 test was used to analyze triage levels in trauma and nontrauma settings. All data were entered into Microsoft Access 2000 database (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Data were analyzed using values presented as mean ± SD. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. All other analyses were performed with SPSS version 10.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Results In total, 11,293 adult patients were treated in the ED during the study period, of which 3172 (28.8%) had available ESI and TTS scores. Although this study was not conducted using consecutive sampling because of scheduling limitations and difficulties due to high patientt loads, the admission rate was proportionally represented. The basic characteristics of the 3172 patients comprising the study sample are shown in Table 1. The admission rate (to general wards or intensive care units) of the study sample was 23.1% compared to 21.9% for all ED patients admitted during the study period. The overall distribution of ED patients in levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 was 5.2%, 44.5%, 50.2% and 0.001%, respectively. LOS more than 48 hours was 4.6% in the study sample and 4.0% in the total population. The distribution of ESI ratings within each category group of the TTS is listed in Table 2. The distributions of ESI ratings within level 3 of the TTS were: ESI 1, 0.1%; ESI 2, 26.2%; ESI 3, 39.5%; ESI 4, 27.5%; ESI 5, 6.8%. When patients were J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8 619

C.H. Chi, C.M. Huang Table 1. Characteristics of patients enrolled in this study (n = 3172) Characteristics Patients, n (%) Gender Female 1488 (46.9) Male 1684 (53.1) Shifts 0:00 08:00 562 (17.7) 08:00 16:00 928 (29.3) 16:00 24:00 1682 (53.0) Disposition ED discharge 2275 (71.7) Death in ED 14 (0.4) Admission 661 (20.8) Transfer 46 (1.5) Sneak away 14 (0.4) Against advice discharge 90 (2.8) Operation 72 (2.3) ESI levels 1 53 (1.7) 2 1407 (44.4) 3 1082 (34.1) 4 508 (16.0) 5 122 (3.8) Taiwan triage levels 1 204 (6.4) 2 1498 (47.2) 3 1470 (46.3) Settings Trauma 825 (26.0) Nontrauma 2347 (74.0) ED LOS < 6 hr 2103 (66.3) 6 24 hr 682 (21.5) 24 48 hr 241 (7.6) > 48 hr 146 (4.6) Mean (min) 626 Median (min) 178 Age, mean ± SD (yr) 47.4 ± 19.9 ED = emergency department; ESI = Emergency Severity Index; LOS = length of stay. triaged as urgent by TTS, about one-fourth of them were further triaged as ESI 1 or 2 and more than 30% were classified as ESI 4 or 5. The distributions of ESI ratings within TTS level 1 were: ESI 1, 21.1%; ESI 2, 68.1%; ESI 3, 7.4%; ESI 4, 3.4%; ESI 5, 0%. About 10% of patients with TTS level 1 categorization were actually ESI levels 3, 4 or 5 rather than resuscitation/emergent cases. The percentages of patients accurately triaged in accordance with TTS requirements were shown to decrease over triage levels (χ 2 tests, p < 0.001). Only 77.9% of TTS level 1, 63% of level 2 and 47.4% of level 3 categorization were based on clear statements listed in the TTS. These results indicated that for nonurgent patients, triage nurses should use additional information or base their triage severity decision on an exclusion process. Overall, 34.2% of patients were hospitalized. The hospitalization rate decreased with triage level (Table 3), from 96.2% in level 1 to 6.6% in level 5 by ESI triage and from 74.5% in level 1 to 22.2% in level 3 by TTS (χ 2 tests, p < 0.001). ED LOS was also strongly associated with triage level. Table 4 shows the results of ANOVA A for predicting LOS in the ED. There was a significant difference between ESI and TTS categorizations in mean LOS in the ED (ANOVA, p < 0.001, respectively). Analysis using Scheffe s post hoc tests revealed that the level 1 group has a significantly longer LOS when TTS was used than in level 2 (adjusted mean difference = 241; 95% confidence interval [CI], 32 450; p = 0.019). Patients with TTS level 2 categorization have a significantly longer LOS than level 3 (adjusted mean difference = 292; 95% CI, 190 359; p < 0.001). Analysis using Scheffe s post hoc tests showed that ESI level 1 patients do not have a significantly longer LOS than ESI level 2 patients. ED LOS of patients with ESI level 4 categorization was not significantly longer than those with level 5. The mean LOS of patients with ESI levels 4 and 5 was 151 (95% CI, 102 200) and 145 (95% CI, 79 212), respectively, which were shorter than those of patients with TTS level 3 (mean, 453; 95% CI, 405 501). Analysis with Scheffe s post hoc tests showed that patients with ESI level 3 categorization have a significantly longer LOS than those with level 4 (adjusted mean difference = 413; 95% CI, 227 559; p < 0.001). Patients categorized as ESI level 3 also have a significantly longer LOS than those categorized 620 J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8

Emergency department triage Table 2. Distribution of Emergency Severity Index (ESI) ratings within each category group of the Taiwan Triage System (TTS) Patients, n (%) TTS 1, life-threatening TTS 2, emergent TTS 3, urgent ESI 1 43 (21.1) 9 (0.6) 1 (0.1) ESI 2 139 (68.1) 883 (58.9) 385 (26.2) ESI 3 15 (7.4) 487 (32.5) 580 (39.5) ESI 4 7 (3.4) 97 (6.5) 404 (27.5) ESI 5 22 (1.5) 100 (6.8) Total 204 (100) 1498 (100) 1470 (100) Table 3. Category Percentage of patients hospitalized according to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and Taiwan Triage System (TTS) in trauma and nontrauma settings Hospitalization/patients in each level, n (%) Trauma Nontrauma Total Taiwan Triage System TTS 1 51/60 (85.0) 101/144 (70.1) 152/204 (74.5) TTS 2 156/507 (30.8) 456/991 (46.0) 612/1498 (40.9) TTS 3 63/258 (24.4) 262/1212 (21.6) 325/1470 (22.1) Emergency Severity Index ESI 1 12/12 (100.0) 39/41 (95.1) 51/53 (96.2) ESI 2 161/353 (45.6) 501/1054 (47.5) 662/1407 (47.0) ESI 3 87/303 (28.7) 247/779 (31.7) 334/1082 (30.9) ESI 4 7/112 (6.3) 27/396 (6.8) 34/508 (6.7) ESI 5 3/45 (6.7) 5/77 (6.5) 8/122 (6.6) as level 5 (adjusted mean difference = 419; 95% CI, 89 794; p < 0.001). As shown in Table 5, the TTS classified 68.8% of trauma patients as life-threatening or emergent (levels 1 and 2), indicating that they should be evaluated by a physician within 10 minutes of arrival or immediately. The TTS classified 48.4% of nontrauma patients as life-threatening/emergent (levels 1 and 2). These results indicated that the TTS triaged more trauma patients as having highly acute conditions than nontrauma patients (χ 2 test, p < 0.001). However, triage using the ESI resulted in no difference in the percentage of patients with highly acute status between patients with trauma and nontrauma conditions (44.2% vs. 46.6%, p = 0.230). Thus, the ESI provided more accurate prediction of resource utilization regarding LOS, hospitalization and acuity. Discussion This study compared the TTS with a well-evaluated triage tool. The results showed that the Taiwan triage criteria provide less accurate assessment of resource utilization in the ED. The TTS classified more than two-thirds of trauma patients as having very severe conditions (life-threatening or emergent) requiring physicians to attend to them immediately or within 10 minutes. In contrast, the ESI classified only 45% of patients as having highly acute conditions. Patients with either level 4 or 5 on the ESI had significantly shorter ED LOS than those with level 3. The percentages of patients accurately triaged in accordance with TTS requirements were shown to decrease over triage levels. Patients with severe conditions were more usually identified based on J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8 621

C.H. Chi, C.M. Huang Table 4. Analysis of mean emergency department length of stay (minutes) in each category by the Taiwan Triage System (TTS) and Emergency Severity Index (ESI) Category Analysis of variance Level n Mean (95% CI) Median p TTS 1 204 987 (766, 1208) 318 2 1498 746 (683, 809) 232 < 0.001 3 1470 453 (405, 501) 131 ESI 1 53 1092 (617, 1568) 212 2 1407 868 (796, 939) 292 3 1082 565 (506, 623) 191 < 0.001 4 508 151 (102, 200) 39 5 122 145 (79, 212) 39 Table 5. Comparison of distribution of patients with high acuity condition between Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and Taiwan Triage System (TTS) triage ratings in trauma and nontrauma settings Trauma (n = 825) Nontrauma (n = 2347) n (%) n (%) p Taiwan Triage System < 0.001 TTS 1, 2: Life-threatening, emergent 567 (68.8) 1135 (48.4) TTS 3: Urgent 258 (31.2) 1212 (51.6) Emergency Severity Index 0.230 ESI 1, 2: High acuity 365 (44.2) 1095 (46.6) ESI 3 5: Low acuity 460 (55.8) 1252 (53.4) clear rules than patients with less severe conditions. Although conditions such as skin infections, ear pain/otitis, upper respiratory infections/sore throat, toothache, simple urinary tract infection/ dysuria, and foreign bodies are common in the ED, such conditions cannot be triaged by the TTS. Therefore, many conditions were triaged by ruling out existing criteria. The distribution of ESI ratings in this study shows that TTS level 3 is heterogeneous in terms of the conditions categorized and their severities. About one-fourth of TTS level 3 patients classified as having highly severe conditions were undertriaged according to ESI criteria. The mean LOS of TTS level 3 patients in this study was 453 minutes. The mean LOS in levels 4 and 5 was 145 and 151 minutes, respectively. Although patients with very severe conditions do not necessarily have a longer LOS, the LOS of patients with less severe conditions would be expected to be shorter. Patients in ESI level 1 and TTS level 1 have significantly longer LOS than those in all the other levels. A previous study in a large pub- 70% of hospital admissions were delayed. The rea- lic university hospital ED in Taiwan showed thatt sons for delay included more than one subspecialty being involved, unavailable bed, disparity in admission priority between emergency physicians and hospital staff, and patients who could be treated by other alternatives. 19 Patients in ESI level 1 and TTS level 1 having significantly longer LOS in this study is additional evidence of ED overcrowding in this country. The universal coverage and copayment policy of the NHI system in Taiwan affect triage classification. As lower physician fees apply to level 4 (nonurgent) ED patients, it is common that almost 622 J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8

Emergency department triage all patients who receive ED management are categorized as level 3 or above in Taiwan. This might explain the findings of a study that showed that although NHI implementation did not result in a substantial increase in ED volume, the severity of cases as measured by triage nurses increased. 20 The current TTS cannot differentiate between those who require fewer human and material resources from those who require further evaluation or disposition within the level 3 category. The findings of this study suggest that the 5-L ESI triage system would have better discrimination ability than the current triage system in Taiwan, thus enabling better resource management and planning. Use of the TTS resulted in trauma patients being assigned higher priority than nontrauma patients in this study, classifying 68.8% of them as requiring physician attention immediately or within 10 minutes according to the regulations. In contrast, when the ESI was applied, only 44.2% of the trauma patients were defined as having high acuity. The 3-L triage, of course, results in shorter perceived waiting times than the 5-L triage. If waiting times are longer than what patients expect or what is mandated by the regulations, then dissatisfaction is likely to arise. 21 This phenomenon has been illustrated by a recent survey in Southern Taiwan, which showed that 73.4% of ED patients can wait for 5 minutes, 45.9% for 10 minutes, but only 11% can wait for 30 minutes before becoming dissatisfied. 22 The categorization of all ED patients in Taiwan as level 3 or above clearly results in resource misuse, and disregards the existing regulations. Improvement of the triage system is required to make the best use of available resources to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of patients. Currently, body temperature and systolic blood pressure are the only vital signs used as triage criteria in Taiwan. The vital signs used in the ESI are pulse, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation and, for any child under the age of 3, body temperature. Cooper et al found that postvital signs triage designations better predicted patient ED disposition, especially in the young ( 2 years) and elderly ( 75 years). 23 Providing physicians with routine triage pulse oximetry measurements resulted in significant changes in the medical treatmentt of ED patients. 24 Tachypnea/hypoxia and altered mental status were independent predictors of death in patients with suspected infection. 25 As manual and electronic measurements of vital signs at triage appear to be reliable (oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and heart rate) 26 and pulse oximetry is presently an inexpensive technology, these vital signs would seem to be worthwhile screening tools for emergency triage. The addition of more vital signs as criteria in the TTS might improve its ability to predict resource utilization. Before 1994, widely diverse triage rules and lack of agreement on how to triage and for what purpose was viewed as a deterrent to establishing valid case mix comparisons between facilities within and between countries. 27,28 At present, only three major scales have an associated research base showing reliability, validity and application beyond just classification, and all are 5-L scales. Both the American College of Emergency Physi- cians and Emergency Nurses Association support the adoption of a reliable, valid 5-L triage scale. The quality of patient care would benefit from implementing a standardized ED triage scale and acuity categorization process. 29 There were several important limitations in this study, which should be mentioned. First, we did not include pediatric patients. Studies have shown that the level of agreement between nurses applying the triage scale to pediatric presentations was only moderate to poor and appears to be lower than the consistency with which it is applied to adult presentations. 30,31 Pediatric triage in the ED confronts different developmental and physiologic variations that make communication, assessment and identification of serious illnesses or injury quite different compared with adult triage. Further study of pediatric triage in Taiwan is needed. Second, the sample in this study was not recruited on a strictly consecutive basis because of resource limitations and heavy patient loads. Third, this study was conducted at a single hospital only. Further multicenter study is necessary to J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8 623

C.H. Chi, C.M. Huang improve the quality of data regarding prediction of resource allocation by the available triage system. In addition, test retest reliability was not performed using the same individual (triage nurses) on different occasions. Finally, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the criteria rather than the algorithm of the ESI in our ED practice. Thus, this study did not assess whether the 5-L ESI triage algorithm is easier to implement, learn and communicate patient acuity, or provides more suitable prioritization of patients than our current triage system. A validated triage system consistently describes urgency, has high interrater reliability, successfully predicts ED outcome, can measure and track ED workload, can be used for quality assurance, meets medicolegal justification and can be reliably taught to nursing staff. 4 Our results and observations have shown that the ESI provided more accurate triage of patient acuity, ED LOS and hospitalization rate than the TTS. This finding suggests that there is a need to adopt a standardized 5-L triage tool to improve resource utilization planning in ED practice. Acknowledgments We are indebted to Mrs Shu-Fen Liu and Mrs Ya- Fang Tu for their assistance with the data record and statistical analyses. We also thank Jeffrey Desmond, MD, and Susan Stern, MD, for their comments and suggestions. References 1. Wuerz RC, Milne LW, Eitel DR, et al. Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:236 42. 2. Beveridge R. The Canadian triage and acuity scale: a new and critical element in health care reform. J Emerg Med 1998;16:507 11. 3. Hardern RD. Critical appraisal of papers describing triage systems. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:1166 71. 4. Gilboy N, Travers D, Wuerz R. Emergency nursing at the Millennium. Re-evaluating triage in the new millennium: a comprehensive look at the need for standardization and quality. J Emerg Nurs 1999;25:468 73. 5. American College of Emergency Physicians. A Uniform Triage Scale in Emergency Medicine. Information Paper. Available at http://www.acep.org/library/pdf/triagescaleip. pdf. [Accessed: October 20, 2005] 6. MacKway-Jones K (ed). Manchester Triage Group. Emergency Triage. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1997. 7. Richardson D. No relationship between emergency department activity and triage categorization. Acad Emerg Med 1998;6:141 5. 8. Travers DA. Five-level triage system more effective than three-level in tertiary emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 2002;28:395 400. 9. Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale implementation guidelines. J Can Assoc Emerg Phys 1999; 1(Suppl):S1 16. 10. Jelinek GA, Little M. Inter-rater reliability of the National Triage Scale over 11,500 simulated occasions of triage. Emerg Med 1996;8:226 30. 11. Beveridge R, Ducharme J, Janes L, et al. Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: interrater agreement. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34: 155 9. 12. Tanabe P, Gimbel R, Yarnold PR, et al. The emergency severity index (version 3) 5-level triage system scores predict ED resource consumption. J Emerg Nurs 2004;30: 22 9. 13. Tanabe P, Gimbel R, Yarnold PR, et al. Reliability and validity of scores on The Emergency Severity Index version 3. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:59 65. 14. Eitel DR, Travers DA, Rosenau AM, et al. The emergency severity index triage algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:1070 80. 15. Wuerz RC, Milne LWQ, Eitel DR, et al. Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:236 42. 16. Wuerz RC, Travers D, Gilboy N, et al. Implementation and refinement of the emergency severity index. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:183 4. 17. Jiang JL, Tsai YF. The exploration of agreement among emergency nurses and physicians about triage decisions. Tzu Chiu Med J 1999;11:255 62. [In Chinese] 18. Loke SS, Liaw SJ, Tiong LK, et al. Evaluation of nursephysician inter-observer agreement on triage categorization in the emergency department of a Taiwan medical center. Chang Gung Med J 2002;25:446 52. 19. Shih FY, Ma MH, Chen SC, et al. ED overcrowding in Taiwan: facts and strategies. Am J Emerg Med 1999;17: 198 202. 20. Lin YL, Hsiao CK, Ma HM, et al. The impact of National Health Insurance on the volume and severity of emergency department use. Am J Emerg Med 1998;16: 92 4. 624 J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8

Emergency department triage 21. Hu SC. Clinical and demographic characteristics of adult emergency patients at the Taipei Veterans General Hospital. J Formos Med Assoc 1994;93:61 5. 22. Chen MH, Huang YC. Public awareness of triage and waiting time at emergency department. J Taiwan Emerg Med 2003;5:128 31. 23. Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Flaherty HL, et al. Effect of vital signs on triage decisions. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39:223 32. 24. Mower WR, Sachs C, Nicklin EL, et al. Effect of routine emergency department triage pulse oximetry screening on medical management. Chest 1995;108:1297 302. 25. Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Moore RB, et al. Mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score: a prospectively derived and validated clinical prediction rule. Crit Care Med 2003;31:670 5. 26. Worster A, Elliott L, Bose TJ, et al. Reliability of vital signs measured at triage. Eur J Emerg Med 2003;10:108 10. 27. Fatovich DM, Jacobs IG. NTS versus waiting time: an indicator without definition. Emerg Med (Fremantle) 2001; 13:47 50. 28. Rogers IR, Evans L, Jelinek GA, et al. Using clinical indicators in emergency medicine: documenting performance improvements to justify increased resource allocation. J Accid Emerg Med 1999;16:319 21. 29. ACEP Policy Statements. Triage Scale Standardization. Available at http://www.acep.org/3,33178,0.html. [Accessed: October 20, 2005] 30. Nakagawa J, Ouk S, Schwartz B, et al. Interobserver agreement in emergency department triage. Ann Emerg Med 2003;41:191 5. 31. Bergeron S, Gouin S, Bailey B, et al. Comparison of triage assessments among pediatric registered nurses and pediatric emergency physicians. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9: 1397 401. J Formos Med Assoc 2006 Vol 105 No 8 625