medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Acta Pediátrica de México

Órgano Oficial del Instituto Nacional de Pediatría
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2016, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Pediatr Mex 2016; 37 (1)

Triage, priorization tools of pediatric emergency room

Avilés-Martínez KI, López-Enríquez A, Luévanos-Velázquez A, Jiménez-Pérez BA, García-Armenta MB, Ceja-Moreno H, Santos-Hernández M, Montaño-Dorado CJ, López-Altamirano D, Álvarez-Venegas G
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 4-16
PDF size: 868.88 Kb.


Key words:

Emergency, Emergency Pediatric Room, assessment, triage.

ABSTRACT

The Pediatric Triage is a preliminary structured clinical assessment process to prioritize care degree of emergency, identify vital risk, ensure the reassessment for patients that should wait for attention, decide the most appropriate area to care for them and optimize the quality of care.
Objective: Determine the usefulness of the Pediatric-Assessment- Triangle (PET), Pediatric-Early-Warning-System (PEWS) and SAVE A CHILD for the proper identification and initial rating of the severity of illness of children in Triage.
Material and methods: Diagnostic test transversal study conducted in the Emergency Pediatric Room (EPR). Inclusion criteria: income from triage. Exclusion criteria: children already hospitalized, income from administrative case. Simple random sampling. It began with the classification by a Pediatrician in triage and allocation of severity (I-VI) by The Canadian Paediatric Scale (PaedCTAS) as a reference standard. Parallel data collection for PET, SAT and SAVE A CHILD. The data obtained were corroborated for a second pediatrician to provide definitive care.
Results: 1120 children were assessed; 560 were admitted directly from triage to bed EPR (84.6% classified as level I, II or III) and 560 initially reviewed in office triage (20.2% level II or III). We obtained as a diagnostic test for PaedCTAS, sensibity = 82%, specificity = 80%, LR+ = 4.16 (OR 4.99; p ‹ 0.001); PET sensibity = 81%, specificity = 87%, LR+ = 5.2 (OR 92.3; p ‹ 0.001); SAVE A CHILD sensibity = 90%, specificity = 85%, LR+ = 1.2 (OR 15.2; p ‹ 0.001).
Conclusions: The study showed that PET, PEWS and SAVE A CHILD were useful tools to identify and classify the severity initial of disease in triage. The best result was obtained when employed they were used together.


REFERENCES

  1. Breslin K, Marx J, Hoffman H, McBeth R, Pavuluri P. Pediatric Early Warning Score at Time of Emergency Department Disposition In Associated With Level of Care. Pediatr Emerg Care 2014;30(2):97-103.

  2. Chamberlain JM, Pollack MM. A Method for Assessing Emergency Department Performance Using Patient Outcomes. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5(10):986-91.

  3. Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Secreteria de Salud, SEDENA, SEMAR, IMSS, ISSSTE. Triage hospitalario de primer contacto en los servicios de ugencias adutos para el segundo y tercer nivel de atención. Guía de Práctica Clínica México: Secretaria de Salud. 2008. Catálogo Maestro ISSSTE-339-08. http://www.cenetec.salud.gob.mx/interior/gpc.html

  4. Warren DW, Jarvis A, Louise LeBlanc L, Gravel J. Revisions to the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale Paediatric Guideliness (PaedCTAS). CJEM*JCMU 2008;10(3):224-32.

  5. Chaiyakulsil C, Pandee U. Validation of pediatric early warning score in pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Int 2015;57(4);694-8.

  6. Tucker KM, Brewer TL, Baker RB, Demeritt B, Vossmeyer MT. Prospective Evaluation Of A Pediatric Inpatient Early Warning Scoring System. JSPN 2008;14(2):79-85.

  7. Solevag, AL, Eggen EH, Schröder J, Nakstad B. Use of a Modified Pediatric Early Score in a Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org. 2013;8(8):e72534.

  8. Parshuram CS, Hutchison J, Middaugh K. Development and initial validation of the bedside Paediatric Early Warning System Score. Crit Care 2009;13(4):1-10.

  9. Bernardo LM, Bove M. Pediatric Emergency Nursing Procedures. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers International; 1993.

  10. Panesar R, Polikoff LA, Harris D, Mills B, Messina C, Parker MM. Characteristics and Outcomes of Pediatric Rapid Reponse Teams before and after mandatory triggering by an Elevated Pediatric Early Warning System (PEWS) Score. HOSPITAL Pediatrics 2014;4(3):135-40.

  11. Dieckmann RA, Brownstein D, Gausche-Hill M. The Pediatric Assessment Triangle. A novel approach for the rapid evaluation of children. Pediatric Emergency Care 2010;26(4):312-315.

  12. Murray MJ. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: A Canadian perspective on emergency department triage. Emerg Med 2003;15(1):6-10.

  13. Horeczko T, Enriquez B, McGrath NE, Gausche-Hil M, Lewis RJ. The Pediatric Assessment Triangle: accuracy of its application by nurses in the triage children. J Emerg Nurs 2013;39(2):182-9.

  14. Parshuram CS, Duncan HP, Joffe AR, Farrel CA, Lacroix JR, Middaugh KL, et. al. Multicente validation of the bedside paediatric early warning system score: a severity of illness score to detect evolving critical illness in hospitalised children. Critical Care 2011;15:R184:1-10.

  15. Seiger N, van Veen M, Almeida H, Steyerberg EW, van Meurs AH, Cameiro R, Alves CF, Maconochie I. Improving the Manchester Triage System for Pediatric Emergency Care: An Interantional Multicenter Study. PLOS | ONE. 2014 Jan. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083267.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Acta Pediatr Mex. 2016;37