Does Practice Match Protocol? A Comparison of Triage-to-Provider Time Among More vs. Less Acute Emergency Department Patients
Temesgen T Tsige,Rida Nasir,Daisy Puca,Kevin Charles,Sandhya LoGalbo,Lisa O Iyeke,Lindsay Jordan,Melva O Morales Sierra,David Silver,Mark Richman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66079
2024-08-03
Cureus
Abstract:Introduction The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) stratifies emergency department (ED) patients for triage, from "most acute" (level 1) to "least acute" (level 5). Many EDs have a split flow model where less acute (ESI 4 and 5) are seen in a fast track, while more acute (ESI 1, 2, and 3) are seen in the acute care area. A core principle of emergency medicine (EM) is to attend to more acute patients first. Deliberately designating an area for less acute patients to be initially assessed quickly by a first provider might result in them being seen before more acute patients. This study aims to determine the percentage of less acute patients seen by a provider sooner after triage than more acute patients who arrived within 10 minutes of one another. Additionally, this study compares the fast track and acute care areas to see if location affects triage-to-provider time. Methods A random convenience sample of 252 ED patients aged ≥18 was taken. Patients were included if their ESI was available for the provider during sign-up. Patients were excluded if they were directly sent to the ED psychiatric area or attended to by the author. We collected data on the ESI level, time stamps for triage and first provider sign-up, and the location to which the patient was triaged (fast track vs. acute care). Paired patients' ESI levels, locations, and triage and first provider sign-up times were compared. Results The study included 126 pairs of patients. There was a statistically significant difference in triage-to-provider times for paired ESI 2 vs. 3 patients (60.5 vs. 35.5 minutes, p = 0.0007) and overall paired high- vs. low-acuity patients (55 vs. 39.5 minutes, p = 0.004). However, in 34.8% of paired ESI 2 vs. 3 patients, the ESI 3 patient was seen prior to the paired ESI 2 patient, and in 39.4% of overall paired high vs. low acuity patients, the less acute patient was seen before the more acute patient. Additionally, patients in the acute care area had significantly shorter median triage-to-provider times (~40 minutes) compared to those in the fast track area for ESI 2 (acute care) vs. ESI 3 (fast track) and overall high acuity (acute care) vs. low acuity (fast track). Nonetheless, approximately one-third of ESI 3 patients triaged to fast track were seen before ESI 2 patients triaged to the acute care area. Conclusion The split flow model reduces overall ED length of stay, improving flow volume, revenue, and patient satisfaction. However, it comes at the expense of the fundamental ethos of EM and potentially subverts the intended triage process. Although most more acute patients are seen by a provider sooner after triage than less acute patients, a substantial number are seen later, which could delay urgent medical needs and negatively impact patients' outcomes. Furthermore, patients triaged to acute care are, in general, seen sooner post-triage than identical-ESI-level fast track patients, suggesting fast track might not function as intended (for low-acuity patients to be quickly assessed and initiate diagnostic and treatment plans). We intend to follow this exploratory study with a more comprehensive, multivariate analysis that will consider confounding variables such as initial vital signs, how busy a provider was that day, etc. The future study will also examine patient outcomes to determine the impact on more acute patients of the split flow model and, in particular, on less acute patients being seen sooner by a first provider.