Accuracy and concordance of nurses in emergency department triage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the emergency department (ED) Registered Nurses (RNs) often perform triage, i.e. the sorting and prioritizing of patients. The allocation of acuity ratings is commonly based on a triage scale. To date, three reliable 5-level triage scales exist, of which the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is one. In Sweden, few studies on ED triage have been conducted and the organization of triage has been found to vary considerably with no common triage scale. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and concordance of emergency nurses acuity ratings of patient scenarios in the ED setting. Totally, 423 RNs from 48 (62%) Swedish EDs each triaged 18 patient scenarios using the CTAS. Of the 7,550 triage ratings, 57.6% were triaged in concordance with the expected outcome and no scenario was triaged into the same triage level by all RNs. Inter-rater agreement for all RNs was kappa = 0.46 (unweighted) and kappa = 0.71 (weighted). The fact that the kappa-values are only moderate to good and the low concordance between the RNs call for further studies, especially from a patient safety perspective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".