Prospective comparison of AMB, GAP AND START scores and triage nurse clinical judgement for predicting admission from an ED: a single-centre prospective study. Issue 12 (30th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Salvato, Mauro; Solbiati, Monica; Bosco, Paola; Casazza, Giovanni; Binda, Filippo; Iotti, Marco; Calegari, Jessica; Laquintana, Dario; Costantino, Giorgio
• Is Part Of: Emergency medicine journal. Volume 39:Issue 12(2022)
• Page Start: 897
• Page End: 902
• Publication Date: 2021-12-30
• Subjects: triage -- emergency nursing -- emergency department -- hospitalisations; Emergency medicine -- Periodicals; 616.02505
• DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210814
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1472-0205

Abstract

Abstract : Background: It is postulated that early determination of the need for admission can improve flow through EDs. There are several scoring systems which have been developed for predicting patient admission at triage, although they have not been directly compared. In addition, it is not known if these scoring systems perform better than clinical judgement. Therefore, the aim of this study was to validate existing tools in predicting hospital admission during triage and then compare them with the clinical judgement of triage nurses. Methods: To conduct this prospective, single-centre observational study, we enrolled consecutive adult patients who presented between 30 September 2019 and 25 October 2019 at the ED of a large teaching hospital in Milan, Italy. For each patient, triage nurses recorded all of the variables needed to perform Ambulatory (AMB), Glasgow Admission Prediction (GAP) and Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) scoring. The probability of admission was estimated by the triage nurses using clinical judgement and expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100 with intervals of 5. Nurse estimates were dichotomised for analysis, with ≥50% likelihood being a prediction of admission. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated for accuracy of the predictions. Area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI for each of the scores and for the nursing judgements was also calculated. Results: A total of 1710 patients (844 men; median age, 54 years (IQR: 34–75)) and 35 nurses (15 men; median age, 37 years (IQR: 33–48)) were included in this study. Among these patients, 310 (18%) were admitted to hospital from the ED. AUC values for AMB, GAP and START scores were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.79), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.75) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.64), respectively. The AUC for nurse clinical judgement was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84 to 0.89). Conclusion: AMB, GAP and START scores provided moderate accuracy in predicting patient admission. However, all of the scores were significantly worse than the clinical judgement of the triage nurses.