A Comparison Between Computer-Assisted Self-Triage by Patients and Triage Performed by Nurses in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective Emergency departments (EDs) often find the number of arriving patients exceeding their capacity and find it difficult to triage them in a timely manner. The potential risk to the safety of patients awaiting assessment by a triage professional has led some hospitals to consider implementing patient self-triage, such as using kiosks. Published studies about patient self-triage are scarce and information about patients' ability to accurately assess the acuity of their condition or predict their need to be hospitalized is limited. In this study, we aimed to compare computer-assisted patient self-triage scores versus the scores assigned by the dedicated ED triage nurse (TN). Methods This pilot study enrolled patients presenting to a tertiary care hospital ED without ambulance transport. They were asked a short series of simple questions based on an algorithm, which then generated a triage score. Patients were asked whether they were likely to be admitted to the hospital. Patients then entered the usual ED system of triage. The algorithm-generated triage score was then compared with the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score assigned by the TN. Whether the patients actually required hospital admission was determined by checking their medical records. Results Among the 492 patients enrolled, agreement of triage scores was observed in 27%. Acuity was overestimated by 65% of patients. Underestimation of acuity occurred in 8%. Among patients predicting hospitalization, 17% were admitted, but the odds ratio (OR) for admission was 3.4. Half of the patients with cardiorespiratory complaints were correct in predicting the need for hospitalization. Conclusion The use of a short questionnaire by patients to self-triage showed limited accuracy, but sensitivity was high for some serious medical conditions. The prediction of hospitalization was more accurate with regard to cardiorespiratory complaints.
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".