Comparison of triple triage system and CTAS (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale) system in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aim: Triage systems are crucial for determining patient care priorities and efficiently utilizing resources in emergency departments. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the three-stage triage system (TR) and the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) system in terms of patient safety, resource management, and alignment with expert opinions in an adult emergency department. Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional, single-blind clinical study was conducted in an adult emergency department between October 1 and October 15, 2021. Patients aged 15 years and older with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15 were included in the study. Trauma patients, patients transported by ambulance, and patients under 15 years of age were excluded from the study. CTAS was applied by a single emergency medicine resident on odd days of the month, while TR was applied on the even days. The specialist physician who provided the reference triage categories was unaware of the initial assessments. Primary outcomes included inter-rater agreement (weighted kappa coefficient), triage accuracy, and resource utilization patterns. Statistical analysis used the Kruskal-Wallis H test, Fisher's exact test, and a weighted kappa coefficient with a significance level set at P<0.05. Results: A total of 620 patients were evaluated (TR: n=290, CTAS: n=330). CTAS demonstrated significantly higher agreement with expert opinion compared to TR (κ=0.375, P<0.001) (κ=0.835, P<0.001). In CTAS, the rate of inadequate triage was significantly lower (12%) compared to TR (28%). CTAS demonstrated a more balanced patient distribution across emergency levels and rational resource utilization, resulting in appropriate requests for radiological examinations at T3 level (32.35% compared to 78.95% in the yellow zone of TR, P<0.001). Hospital admission rates were higher in CTAS (seven patients) compared to TR (one patient). Conclusion: The CTAS system demonstrated significantly higher compliance and lower triage error rates compared to the TR system, with expert consensus, thereby showing superior performance in terms of patient safety and resource management. The implementation of CTAS in emergency departments may improve the quality of patient care and optimize resource utilization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".