Inter-rater reliability of a computerized presenting-complaint–linked triage system in an urban emergency department

Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 323-329

  Grafstein, Eric ^a   Innes, Grant ^a   Westman, Julie ^a   Christenson, James ^a   Thorne, Anona ^a  

^a ST PAUL S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale; CTAS; presenting complaints; reliability

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011431830     PISSN: 14818035     EISSN: 14818043     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1481803500015839     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Beveridge, R, Clarke, B, Janes, L, Savage, N, Thompson, J, Dodd, G, et al. Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: implementation guidelines. Can J Emerg Med. 1999; 1(suppl 3):S1–24. Available: www.caep.ca/002.policies/00202.ctas.htm (accessed 2003 Aug 13).
2. Stenstrom, R, Grafstein, E, Innes, G, Christenson, J. The predictive validity of the Canadian triage and acuity scale (CTAS) [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med. 2003; 5(3):184.
3. Grafstein, E, Unger, B, Bullard, M, Innes, G, for the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Working Group. Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Presenting Complaint List (Version 1.0). Can J Emerg Med. 2003; 5(1):27–34.
4. Australasian College of Emergency Medicine. A National Triage Scale [policy]. Emerg Med. 1994; 6: 145–6.
5. Murray, MJ, Bondy, S. The reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale in the prehospital setting: interrater agreement between paramedics and nurses [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med. 2002; 4(2):128.
6. Jelinek, G, Little, M. Interrater reliability of the National Triage Scale. Emerg Med. 1996; 8: 226–30.
7. Grafstein, E, Innes, G, Christenson, J, Clarke, L. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale triage: reliability for high acuity patients [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med. 2001; 3(2):143.
8. Manos, D, Petrie, DA, Beveridge, RC, Walter, S, Ducharme, J. Interobserver agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale. Can J Emerg Med. 2002; 4(1):16–22.
9. Fernandes, C, Wuerz, R, Clark, S, Djurdjev, O. How reliable is emergency department triage? Ann Emerg Med. 1999; 34(2):141–59.
10. Wuerz, RC, Milne, LW, Eitel, DR, Travers, D, Gilboy, N. Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument. Acad Emerg Med. 2000; 7(3):236–42.
11. Beveridge, R, Ducharme, J, Janes, L, Beaulieu, S, Walter, S. Reliability of the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: interrater agreement. Ann Emerg Med. 1999; 34: 155–9.
12. Doherty, S. Application of the National Triage Scale is not uniform. Aust Emerg Nurs J. 1996; 1(1):26.
13. Dilley, S, Standen, P. Victorian triage nurses demonstrate concordance in the application of the National Triage Scale. Emerg Med. 1998; 10: 12–8.
14. Landis, J, Koch, G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159–74.
15. Byrt, T, Bishop, J, Carlin, J. Bias. Prevalence and Kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46(5)423–9.
16. Aronsky, D, Kendall, D, Merkley, K, James, BC, Haug, PJ. A comprehensive set of coded chief complaints for the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2001; 8(10): 980–9.
17. Cleary, MI, Ashby, RH, Jelinek, GA, Lagaida, R. The future of casemix in emergency medicine and ambulatory care. Med J Aust. 1994; 161 (suppl):S30–3.