Send to

Choose Destination
Acad Emerg Med. 2005 Jun;12(6):502-7.

Emergency triage: comparing a novel computer triage program with standard triage.

Author information

Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.



Emergency department (ED) triage prioritizes patients based on urgency of care; however, little previous testing of triage tools in a live ED environment has been performed.


To determine the agreement between a computer decision tool and memory-based triage.


Consecutive patients presenting to a large, urban, tertiary care ED were assessed in the usual fashion and by a blinded study nurse using a computerized decision support tool. Triage score distribution and agreement between the two triage methods were reported. A random subset of patients was selected and reviewed by a blinded expert panel as a consensus standard.


Over five weeks, 722 ED patients were assessed; complete data were available from 693 (96%) score pairs. Agreement between the two methods was poor (kappa = 0.202; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.150 to 0.254); however, agreement improved when using weighted kappa (0.360; 95% CI = 0.305 to 0.415) or "within one" level kappa (0.732; 95% CI = 0.644 to 0.821). When compared with the expert panel, the nurse triage scores showed lower agreement (0.263; 95% CI = 0.133 to 0.394) than the tool (kappa = 0.426; 95% CI = 0.289 to 0.564). There was a significant down-triaging of patients when patients were triaged without the computerized tool. Admission rates also differed between the triage systems.


There was significant discrepancy by nurses using memory-based triage when compared with a computer tool. Triage decision support tools can mitigate this drift, which has administrative implications for EDs.

Comment in

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center