Abstract

BackgroundPatients attending hospital emergency departments (ED) commonly cite the urgency and severity of their condition as the main reason for choosing the ED. However, the patients’ perception of urgency and severity may be different to the nurses’ perception of their urgency and severity, which is underpinned by their professional experience, knowledge, training and skills. This discordance may be a cause of patient dissatisfaction. The purpose of this study is to understand the extent of agreement/disagreement between the patient’s perceived priority and actual triage category and associated factors.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 417 patients attending eight public hospital EDs in Queensland, Australia between March and May 2011 was conducted. The survey included patient’s perceived priority and other health-related, socio-demographic and perceptual factors. Patients’ triage category data were retrieved from their ED records and linked back to their survey data. Descriptive and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used.ResultsOver 48 % of the respondents expected to be given higher priority than the actual triage category they were assigned; 31 % had their perceived priority matched with the triage category; and 20 % of the respondents expected a lower priority than the triage category they received (Kappa 0.07, p < 0.01). Patients who expected a higher priority tended to be more frequent users (≥3 times in the past six months), and to score higher on perceived seriousness, perceived urgency, and pain score compared to the patients whose perceived priority matched the triage category or anticipated a lower priority. In the multivariate analysis, only perceived urgency remained significantly associated with expected higher priority (OR = 1.27, 95 % CI: 1.14–1.43).DiscussionOur findings clearly confirmed the discrepancy between patient perception of urgency and staff assessment of urgency. This can have important implications particularly for the patients who underrate the urgency of their condition. Improved and open communication and the incorporation of the ‘patient voice’ into the triage process require understanding the patient’s perspectives and their involvement in the decision making process.ConclusionsNoted differences between patient and practitioner perception of clinical urgency were identifed in this study.

Highlights

  • Patients attending hospital emergency departments (ED) commonly cite the urgency and severity of their condition as the main reason for choosing the emergency departments’ (EDs)

  • There is a tendency for patients to over-rate their priority, the correlation between perceived priority and actual triage category is weak, and the Kappa shows no statistically significant agreement between the two variables

  • Factors associated with Inter-rater agreement The concordance between the two variables (i.e. Patient’s perceived priority and Actual triage category) was considered in three categories for further analysis: Table 1 Respondents’ characteristics by consent group

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Patients attending hospital emergency departments (ED) commonly cite the urgency and severity of their condition as the main reason for choosing the ED. Many factors contribute to this increase, some literature point to “inappropriate” users [5,6,7,8,9] who are referred to as “primary care” or “general practitioner (GP) type” patients Advocates of this opinion use criteria such as low triage category and lack of the need for admission into the hospital wards to assert that these patients do not need to be in an ED in the first place and should visit a primary health care service instead [10, 11]. In today’s patient-centred approach to health care delivery, further research is required in this area

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.