Validity of the Manchester Triage System in emergency care: A prospective observational study

Objectives To determine the validity of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in emergency care for the general population of patients attending the emergency department, for children and elderly, and for commonly used MTS flowcharts and discriminators across three different emergency care settings. Methods This was a prospective observational study in three European emergency departments. All consecutive patients attending the emergency department during a 1-year study period (2010–2012) were included. Validity of the MTS was assessed by comparing MTS urgency as determined by triage nurses with patient urgency according to a predefined 3-category reference standard as proxy for true patient urgency. Results 288,663 patients were included in the analysis. Sensitivity of the MTS in the three hospitals ranged from 0.47 (95%CI 0.44–0.49) to 0.87 (95%CI 0.85–0.90), and specificity from 0.84 (95%CI 0.84–0.84) to 0.94 (95%CI 0.94–0.94) for the triage of adult patients. In children, sensitivity ranged from 0.65 (95%CI 0.61–0.70) to 0.83 (95%CI 0.79–0.87), and specificity from 0.83 (95%CI 0.82–0.83) to 0.89 (95%CI 0.88–0.90). The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 13.5 (95%CI 12.1–15.0) to 35.3 (95%CI 28.4–43.9) in adults and from 9.8 (95%CI 6.7–14.5) to 23.8 (95%CI 17.7–32.0) in children, and was lowest in the youngest patients in 2 out of 3 settings and in the oldest patients in all settings. Performance varied considerably between the different emergency departments. Conclusions Validity of the MTS in emergency care is moderate to good, with lowest performance in the young and elderly patients. Future studies on the validity of triage systems should be restricted to large, multicenter studies to define modifications and improve generalizability of the findings.

[1]  J. Luitse,et al.  Observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System and the Emergency Severity Index: a simulation study , 2009, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[2]  R. Fimmers,et al.  The German Version of the Manchester Triage System and Its Quality Criteria – First Assessment of Validity and Reliability , 2014, PloS one.

[3]  M. V. van Baar,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Manchester Triage System in a general emergency department patient population in the Netherlands: results of a simulation study , 2008, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[4]  M. Cooke,et al.  Does the Manchester triage system detect the critically ill? , 1999, Journal of accident & emergency medicine.

[5]  Dirk T Ubbink,et al.  Comparison of an informally structured triage system, the emergency severity index, and the manchester triage system to distinguish patient priority in the emergency department. , 2011, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[6]  Gerard FitzGerald,et al.  Emergency department triage revisited , 2009, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[7]  D. Spain,et al.  Triage of elderly trauma patients: a population-based perspective. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[8]  Kevin Mackway-Jones,et al.  Emergency triage : Manchester Triage Group , 2013 .

[9]  E. Berger Specialty prepares for The Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System: IOM report release anticipated , 2006 .

[10]  Institute of Medicine,et al.  IOM report: the future of emergency care in the United States health system. , 2006, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[11]  N. Mann,et al.  Evaluating age in the field triage of injured persons. , 2012, Annals of emergency medicine.

[12]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  The Manchester triage system: improvements for paediatric emergency care , 2012, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[13]  Manchester triage system in paediatric emergency care: prospective observational study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  C. Subbe,et al.  Validation of a modified Early Warning Score in medical admissions. , 2001, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[15]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. , 2007, Health technology assessment.

[16]  U. Ruttimann,et al.  PRISM III: an updated Pediatric Risk of Mortality score. , 1996, Critical care medicine.

[17]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  H. V. van Stel,et al.  Predicting admission and mortality with the Emergency Severity Index and the Manchester Triage System: a retrospective observational study , 2009, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[19]  S. Kelly,et al.  The failure of triage criteria to identify geriatric patients with trauma: results from the Florida Trauma Triage Study. , 1996, The Journal of trauma.

[20]  Accounting Office,et al.  Overcrowding Crisis in Our Nation's Emergency Departments: Is Our Safety Net Unraveling? , 2004, Pediatrics.

[21]  André Peralta Santos,et al.  Manchester triage system version II and resource utilisation in the emergency department , 2013, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[22]  A I Grouse,et al.  The Manchester Triage System provides good reliability in an Australian emergency department , 2009, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[23]  C. Cairns,et al.  Accuracy of the Emergency Severity Index triage instrument for identifying elder emergency department patients receiving an immediate life-saving intervention. , 2010, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[24]  Tânia Couto Machado Chianca,et al.  Predictive validity of the Manchester Triage System: evaluation of outcomes of patients admitted to an emergency department. , 2012, Revista latino-americana de enfermagem.

[25]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Accuracy of Triage for Children With Chronic Illness and Infectious Symptoms , 2013, Pediatrics.

[26]  Luís Seca,et al.  Importance of Manchester Triage in acute myocardial infarction: impact on prognosis , 2010, Emergency Medicine Journal.