RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison between the Smart Triage model and the Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment (ETAT) guidelines in triaging children presenting to the emergency departments of two public hospitals in Kenya
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.11.08.23298265
DO 10.1101/2023.11.08.23298265
A1 Kamau, Stephen
A1 Kigo, Joyce
A1 Mwaniki, Paul
A1 Dunsmuir, Dustin
A1 Pillay, Yashodani
A1 Zhang, Cherri
A1 Nyamwaya, Brian
A1 Kimutai, David
A1 Ouma, Mary
A1 Mohammed, Ismael
A1 Gachuhi, Keziah
A1 Chege, Mary
A1 Thuranira, Lydia
A1 Ansermino, J Mark
A1 Akech, Samuel
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/09/2023.11.08.23298265.abstract
AB Several triage systems have been developed, but little is known about their performance in low-resource settings. Evaluating and comparing novel triage systems to existing triage scales provides essential information about their added value, reliability, safety, and effectiveness before adoption. This prospective observational study included children aged < 15 years who presented to the emergency departments of two public hospitals in Kenya between February and December 2021. We compared the performance of Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment (ETAT) guidelines and Smart Triage (ST) models (ST-only model, ST model with independent triggers, and recalibrated ST model with independent triggers) in categorizing children into emergency, priority, and non-urgent triage categories. We visualized changes in classification of participants using Sankey diagrams. 5618 children were enrolled, and the majority (3113, 55.4%) were aged between one and five years of age. Overall admission and mortality rates were 7% and 0.9%, respectively. ETAT classified less children, 513 (9.2%), into the emergency category compared to 790 (14.1%), 1163 (20.8%) and 1161 (20.7%) by the ST-only model, ST model with independent triggers and recalibrated model with independent triggers, respectively. ETAT also classified more children, 3089 (55.1%), into the non-urgent triage category compared to 2442 (43.6%), 2097 (37.4%) and 2617 (46.7%) for the respective ST models. ETAT classified 191/395 (48.4%) of admitted patients as emergency compared to more than half by all the ST models. ETAT and the ST-only model classified 25/49 (51%) children who died as emergencies, while the ST models with independent triggers classified 39/49 (79.6%) children as emergencies. Smart Triage shows potential for identifying critically ill children in low-resource settings, particularly when combined with independent triggers. Additionally, it performs comparably to ETAT. Evaluation of Smart Triage in other contexts and comparison to other triage systems is required.Author summary Prioritizing children according to the level of severity of illness in the outpatient department is crucial to ensure very sick children are identified and receive life-saving treatment while those with less severe symptoms can safely wait in the queue. Appropriate triage prevents avoidable paediatric mortality. As new triage systems are developed, it is essential to evaluate their performance before being used by healthcare professionals to manage patients. In this study, we compared a newly developed triage algorithm, Smart Triage, to the World Health Organization’s Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment (ETAT) guidelines. Here, we highlight how participants were categorised into emergency, priority, and non-urgent categories by both triage systems. We also assessed changes in triage categorization by comparing the Smart Triage model only (with and without site specific recalibration) and the model with independent emergency and priority triggers aligned with ETAT. Our study shows that Smart Triage had comparable performance to ETAT, and it can be used to triage children in resource-limited settings. Smart Triage can be integrated into a digital device allowing frontline healthcare workers to rapidly triage children presenting to the outpatient department and recognize very sick children faster, so that they can be treated in a timely manner.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementYesAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) Scientific and Ethics Review Unit (SERU/3958) and Institutional Review Boards at the University of British Columbia in Canada (ID: H19-02398 H20-00484).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe dataset and data dictionary used in this analysis are available upon request from the KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme Data Governance Committee. Applications to access data should be directed to dgc@kemri-wellcome.org.