A comparison of self-triage tools to nurse driven triage in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Canadian patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) typically undergo a triage process where they are assessed by a specially trained nurse and assigned a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score, indicating their level of acuity and urgency of assessment. We sought to assess the ability of patients to self-triage themselves through use of one of two of our proprietary self-triage tools, and how this would compare with the standard nurse-driven triage process. METHODS We enrolled a convenience sample of ambulatory ED patients aged 17 years or older who presented with chief complaints of chest pain, abdominal pain, breathing problems, or musculoskeletal pain. Participants completed one, or both, of an algorithm generated self-triage (AGST) survey, or visual acuity scale (VAS) based self-triage tool which subsequently generated a CTAS score. Our primary outcome was to assess the accuracy of these tools to the CTAS score generated through the nurse-driven triage process. RESULTS A total of 223 patients were included in our analysis. Of these, 32 (14.3%) presented with chest pain, 25 (11.2%) with shortness of breath, 75 (33.6%) with abdominal pain, and 91 (40.8%) with musculoskeletal pain. Of the total number of patients, 142 (47.2%) completed the AGST tool, 159 (52.8%) completed the VAS tool and 78 (25.9%) completed both tools. When compared to the nurse-driven triage standard, both the AGST and VAS tools had poor levels of agreement for each of the four presenting complaints. CONCLUSIONS Self-triage through use of an AGST or VAS tool is inaccurate and does not appear to be a viable option to enhance the current triage process. Further study is required to show if self-triage can be used in the ED to optimize the triage process.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".