The outcome of ''non-urgent'' patients diverted by triage at an emergency department

No universal definitions have been proposed for non-urgent emergency department (ED) patients. Robust evidence on safety issues and the subsequent utilisation of health care services among diverted patients is insufficient. The aim of this study was to establish the revisit rate within 7 days, as well as the 30-day mortality and outcome of patients diverted by triage. An observational single-centre retrospective study was conducted at the Tampere University Hospital ED for the full calendar year of 2019. The primary outcomes were a revisit within 7 days and 30-day mortality. A total of 92,406 ED visits were registered. Of these patients, 7.8% (7216 visits) were diverted by triage. Among the diverted patients, the hospital revisit rate within 7 days was 10.1%, and a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention was performed on 81.4% of the readmitted patients. The all-cause 30-day mortality, hospitalisation and intensive care unit admission rates of diverted patients were 0.07%, 1.7% and 0.1%, respectively. Diverting non-urgent patients reduces ED visits. The current study showed a revisit rate of 10.1% and a 30-day mortality rate of 0.07% for diverted patients. There were more unanticipated adverse outcomes than reported previously, and the strategy may thus be suitable only for some groups of patients without increasing risks. Therefore, further investigation is needed to determine the factors associated with readmissions and adverse outcomes to enhance the performance of triage in the future.

Divert; Emergency department; Mortality; Non-urgent patient; Triage

[1] Zachariasse JM, van der Hagen V, Seiger N, Mackway-Jones K, van Veen M, Moll HA. Performance of triage systems in emergency care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019; 9: e026471.

[2] Kuriyama A, Urushidani S, Nakayama T. Five-level emergency triage systems: variation in assessment of validity. Emergency Medicine Journal 2017; 34: 703–710.

[3] Durand A, Gentile S, Devictor B, Palazzolo S, Vignally P, Gerbeaux P, et al. ED patients: how nonurgent are they? Systematic review of the emergency medicine literature. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2011; 29: 333–345.

[4] Richardson LD, Hwang U. Access to care a review of the emergency medicine literature. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2001; 8: 1030–1036.

[5] Hinson JS, Martinez DA, Cabral S, George K, Whalen M, Hansoti B, et al. Triage performance in emergency medicine: a systematic review. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2019; 74: 140–152.

[6] Durand A, Gentile S, Gerbeaux P, Alazia M, Kiegel P, Luigi S, et al. Be careful with triage in emergency departments: interobserver agreement on 1578 patients in France. BMC Emergency Medicine. 2011; 11: 19.

[7] Washington DL, Stevens CD, Shekelle PG, Baker DW, Fink A, Brook RH. Safely directing patients to appropriate levels of care: guideline-driven triage in the emergency service. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2000; 36: 15–22.

[8] Birnbaum A, Gallagher J, Utkewicz M, Gennis P, Carter W. Failure to validate a predictive model for refusal of care to emergency-department patients. Academic Emergency Medicine. 1994; 1: 213–217.

[9] Brillman JC, Doezema D, Tandberg D, Sklar DP, Davis KD, Simms S, et al. Triage: limitations in predicting need for emergent care and hospital admission. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1996; 27: 493–500.

[10] Vertesi L. Does the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale identify non-urgent patients who can be triaged away from the emergency department? CJEM. 2004; 6: 337–342.

[11] Derlet RW, Kinser D, Ray L, Hamilton B, McKenzie J. Prospective identification and triage of nonemergency patients out of an emergency department: a 5-year study. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1995; 25: 215–223.

[12] Kirkland SW, Soleimani A, Rowe BH, Newton AS. A systematic review examining the impact of redirecting low-acuity patients seeking emergency department care: is the juice worth the squeeze? Emergency Medicine Journal. 2019; 36: 97–106.

[13] Asplin BR, Magid DJ, Rhodes KV, Solberg LI, Lurie N, Camargo CA. A conceptual model of emergency department crowding. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2003; 42: 173–180.

[14] Anantharaman V. Impact of health care system interventions on emergency department utilization and overcrowding in Singapore. International Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2008; 1: 11–20.

[15] von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008; 61: 344–349.

[16] Gilboy N, Tanabe P, Travers DA, Rosenau AM, Eitel DR. Emergency Severity Index, Version 4: Implementation Handbook. 4th ed. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD. 2005.

[17] Valtioneuvoston asetus kiireellisen hoidon perusteista ja päivystyksen erikoisalakohtaisista edellytyksistä. 2017. Available at: https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2017/20170583 (Accessed: 05 October 2021).

[18] Washington DL, Stevens CD, Shekelle PG, Henneman PL, Brook RH. Next-day care for emergency department users with nonacute conditions. A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2002; 137: 707–714.

[19] Kaji AH, Schriger D, Green S. Looking through the retrospectoscope: reducing bias in emergency medicine chart review studies. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2014; 64: 292–298.

[20] Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland. Medical Research Act No. 488/1999. 2010. Available at: www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990488.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2021).