Refusing Care to Emergency Department Patients: Evaluation of Published Triage Guidelines☆,☆☆,★,★★
Section snippets
INTRODUCTION
Emergency department overcrowding has become a national concern. Excess patient volume in urban EDs prolongs waiting times, delays treatment of severely ill patients, and requires diversion of ambulances to more distant hospitals.1, 2 ED directors at 65% of surveyed public and teaching hospitals reported that overcrowding had a negative impact on the quality of care they provided.1
ED overcrowding may stem from many causes: overburdened inpatient facilities, causing a backup of admitted patients
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study used a historical cohort design, with data collected for a previous study of ED waiting times.26 The setting was San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), a public hospital ED with approximately 78,000 patient visits annually. Because SFGH does not refuse ED care, information was available on the ED management of all patients. For each patient, we determined whether the patient would have been provided care or refused care if the published UCD triage guidelines had been in use, and
RESULTS
When the two nurse raters reviewed the 496 charts independently they initially disagreed as to whether the patient met the triage guidelines in 61 (12%) of cases. After discussion, the raters were able to achieve consensus on 487 (98%) of the patients.
The triage guidelines had limited ability to predict which ED visits would meet the explicit appropriateness criteria (Figure 4). Of the 106 patients who would have been refused care by the triage guidelines, 43 (41%; 95% confidence interval [CI],
DISCUSSION
This study calls into question the safety of applying the suggested triage guidelines. The published guidelines were somewhat difficult to apply in that two nurse raters disagreed on 12% of cases. Of greater concern, the triage guidelines lacked sensitivity. Forty-one percent of the patients meeting the triage guidelines for refusal of care received therapeutic or diagnostic interventions in the ED, suggesting that they needed prompt care.
There are several possible explanations for the
CONCLUSION
When tested in our patient population, the proposed triage guidelines were difficult to apply because of their ambiguities and were not sufficiently sensitive to allow their safe use. The limitations of our retrospective study suggest the need for caution in interpreting the results. Nevertheless, it would seem prudent to defer use of the triage guidelines unless they can be validated prospectively, in several EDs, with careful patient follow-up.
While the authors take responsibility for their
References (38)
- et al.
Critical decision-making: Managing the emergency department in an overcrowded hospital
Ann Emerg Med
(1991) - et al.
Refusing care to patients who present to an emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
(1990) - et al.
Refusal of care: The ethical dilemma (letter)
Ann Emerg Med
(1990) Nishio D, Cole LM, et al: Triage of patients out of the emergency department: Three-year experience
Am J Emerg Med
(1992)- et al.
Indigent children who are denied care in the emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
(1990) Access to emergency departments: A survey of HMO policies
Ann Emerg Med
(1989)- et al.
Inappropriate emergency department visits
Ann Emerg Med
(1985) - et al.
Indigent health care in emergency medicine: An academic perspective
Ann Emerg Med
(1991) - et al.
Health access problems of medically indigent emergency department walk-in patients
Ann Emerg Med
(1991) Refusal of care: The ethical dilemma (letter)
Ann Emerg Med
(1990)
Refusal of care: The ethical dilemma (letter)
Ann Emerg Med
Refusal of care: The ethical dilemma (letter)
Ann Emerg Med
Assessing values: Rationing emergency department care
Am J Emerg Med
Refusal of care: The ethical dilemma (letter)
Ann Emerg Med
Algorithm-directed triage in an emergency department
JACEP
Effective algorithm-based triage and self-care protocols: Quality medicine at lower cost
Ann Emerg Med
Algorithm directed triage in a pediatric acute care facility: A retrospective study
Ann Emerg Med
Computerized algorithm-directed triage in the emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
Effectiveness of nurse triage in the emergency department of an urban county hospital
JACEP
Cited by (119)
Comparisons between Full-time and Part-time Pediatric Emergency Physicians in Pediatric Emergency Department
2016, Pediatrics and NeonatologyA novel approach to identifying targets for cost reduction in the emergency department
2013, Annals of Emergency MedicineOn easy solutions
2011, Annals of Emergency MedicineED patients: How nonurgent are they? Systematic review of the emergency medicine literature
2011, American Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :The categorization was performed by 2 sorts of health professionals: a triage nurse or a physician. Among the 17 categorizations performed in the triage area, 15 were done by triage nurses (88.2%) [9-11,18,19,26-28,32,39,43,48,51,55] and 2 by ED physicians (11.8%) [28,49]. The 34 categorizations performed after the examinations were all done by ED physicians.
Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) Guidelines 2016
2017, Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
- ☆
From the Prevention Sciences Group,* Division of Emergency Medicine,† and Institute for Health Policy Studies,‡ University of California, San Francisco and Division of General Internal Medicine,§ Department of Emergency Medicine,∥ and Department of Family and Community Medicine,¶ San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco.
- ☆☆
This work was supported in part by the MEDTEP Research Center on Minority Populations (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Grant #HS07373).
- ★
Address for reprints: Robert A Lowe. MD, MPH, FACEP, FACP, Center for Clinical Epidemiological and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2L NEB/6095, 420 Service Drive, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6095, 215-898-6726, Fax 215-573-5315
- ★★
Reprint no. 47/1/52553