Review article: Biomedical intelligence

The last decade of symptom-oriented research in emergency medicine: triage, work-up, and disposition

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2019.20141
Publication Date: 14.10.2019
Swiss Med Wkly. 2019;149:w20141

Bingisser Roland, Nickel Christian H.

Emergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland

Summary

As a result of the ever-increasing use of imaging and clinical chemistry, symptom-oriented research has lost ground in many areas of clinical medicine. In emergency medicine, the importance of symptom-oriented research is obvious, as the three major tasks (triage, work-up and disposition) are still under-investigated. Scientific progress is closely linked to the analysis of readily available information, such as the patients’ symptoms.

A decade ago, there were more questions than answers. Therefore, we describe the state of the evidence and the importance of symptoms for decisions at triage, during work-up and for disposition. Recent advances in each field focusing on symptoms as predictors of outcome and/or diagnosis are shown. Finally, future directions of research regarding novel triage tools, efficient work-up and evidence-based disposition are discussed. Symptom-oriented research has been a driver for medical progress for centuries, and re-focusing on patient-centred clinical research will strengthen this field in the future in order to support smarter medicine.

Keywords: symptom-oriented research, chief complaint, presenting symptom, high-risk situation, nonspecific complaints, nonspecific symptom, frailty, triage, work-up, disposition, smarter medicine, emergency medicine, outcome, mortality

Introduction

Symptom-oriented research has become the domain of emergency medicine research, as most other specialities have strongly focused diagnostic and prognostic research on individual disease entities, such as asthma, or coronary heart disease, using new methods, including genetics or nuclear medicine [1, 2]. Furthermore, owing to the ever-increasing use of imaging and clinical chemistry, symptom-oriented research has lost ground in many areas of clinical medicine. In the last 20 years, the renowned New England Journal of Medicine has published only one article using “symptom” in the title, namely “throat clearing” as a novel asthma symptom in children [3]. Its counterpart, the Lancet, has published three articles, two letters on “constipation”, and recently one on the safety of digital symptom checkers [4]. As symptom-oriented research was a major driving force in clinical medicine for centuries [5], it seems surprising that the lack of knowledge on the prevalence of underlying conditions and outcomes associated with presenting symptoms has not sparked more scientific interest in recent years. However, this deficit was sensed by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the insufficient investment in this type of research was acknowledged [6, 7].

Importance of symptom-oriented research in emergency medicine

Symptom-oriented research has the potential not only to improve the diagnostic process, but also to provide a prognosis at the earliest timepoint. Emergency medicine is a relatively new field of research covering the earliest phase of acute care and focusing on triage, initial work-up regarding clinical diagnoses, disposition and the early identification of risk factors for serious outcomes such as mortality or institutionalisation. In emergency medicine, patient influx is unpredictable and the risk of short-term morbidity and mortality is considerable. Therefore, risk stratification, for example by triage at presentation, is of pivotal importance. Symptoms, signs and vital parameters are the cornerstones of this process. Vital signs have been extensively studied, whereas the prognostic impact of symptoms has not been well described in emergency medicine.

In order to achieve scientific progress in this medically and economically important field, certain deficits have to be named and key facts acknowledged: First, avoidable mortality should be reduced by means of improving triage processes, as unexpected mortality has been shown to occur after discharge from the emergency department (ED) [8]. Second, unnecessary hospitalisation should be reduced by improving disposition processes, as hospitalisation is one of the major drivers of rising expenses in this field [9]. Third, waste of resources should be tackled by smarter medicine, namely sound and early clinical diagnoses without over-diagnosis and over-use of imaging and clinical chemistry, as the increasing use of imaging may only raise costs, but not change outcomes [10]. Fourth, deleterious outcomes and institutionalisation should be avoided in older patients by early detection of frailty and perilous combinations of vital parameters, symptoms and reduced activities of daily life. These deficits have to be interpreted from the perspective that in highly developed countries the majority of acutely and severely sick patients present to EDs. We will therefore focus on these challenges and give an overview of the improvements during the last decade.

In Switzerland, decisions in EDs affect over 2 million patients, the average cost being CHF 600 in ambulatory, and CHF 16,600 in hospitalised patients (own data). Emergency medicine and primary care have many challenges in common. The common issues in symptom-oriented research and diagnostic strategies in these two specialties are similar [11], but the most frequent symptoms vary considerably between primary care and emergency medicine [12]. Triage is not a major topic in primary care, as short-term mortality and crowding (higher number of patients relative to available resources) are not as prominent as in emergency medicine, and ambulance referral with its high burden of morbidity and mortality is not an issue [13].

Advances due to symptom-oriented research at triage

A decade ago, knowledge on triage was limited to predictive validity and reliability; the issue that triage categories are imprecise and largely overlapping was not even recognised as a problem [14]. Evidence on disposition processes was scant [15] and research on the detection of frailty in the ED consisted of a single publication [16].

At that time, the two most widely used triage tools were the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in Europe and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) in the USA. In 1966 the first original article on triage was published [17], but before 1999, no benefit from nurse triage was ever demonstrated [18]. In 2007 nurse triage was firmly established, and its efficiency and accuracy proven [19]. Among the the first tools, MTS was introduced in 1996, with flow charts for different typical presentations and key indicators. Interestingly, the two main triage tools have followed opposite approaches to evaluating certain symptoms. The MTS assigned patients with chest pain to different risk strata, whereas the ESI generally endorsed the second highest risk category for all patients with chest pain. The consequence of these different triage algorithms was that chest pain patients were immediately admitted to the ED for ECG monitoring according to the ESI [20, 21], but might have been triaged to the waiting room according to the MTS [22]. This used to be (and remains) a disturbing fact, but it is obviously a direct consequence of the lack of data on presenting symptoms. In the last decade, several studies have produced surprising evidence: the typical precordial chest pain in myocardial infarction, described centuries ago, did not have high accuracy or discrimination regarding diagnosis or prognosis [23, 24]. The largest analysis in patients with myocardial infarction showed that age was the major factor for atypical presentation, and that an atypical presentation carried a high risk for serious outcomes and a much higher mortality than a typical presentation [25] – another disturbing fact questioning the frame-works of certain formal triage tools relying on “typical case presentation”.

In the last decade, several studies explored the predictive validity of all major triage tools [2628]. Furthermore, the reliance of triage on the experience and intuition of the clinician has been pointed out [29]. Likewise, its tendency to place a major proportion of patients (up to 49%) into “intermediate acuity” has been noted [3032]. These shortcomings led to various attempts to improve the overall performance of triage by modifying the system itself or by teaching interventions to increase adherence to the algorithm [3335]. Other approaches focused on the use of new technology to create computer-based triage systems, with promising results [30, 36, 37]. Electronic triage systems use algorithms, which are able to take into account a much greater number of predictor variables to perform triage than traditional, established triage systems [38]. Furthermore, electronic triage systems can integrate additional outcome measures for risk stratification, such as mortality, admission to an intensive care unit, or the probability of elevated troponin or lactate levels as surrogate markers for acute coronary syndrome or hypoperfusion, respectively [36].

Another promising approach to the improvement of formal triage is driven by symptom-oriented research: The first studies on the prognostic value of different presenting complaints for short- and long-term outcomes were conducted in all-comer populations [3941]. Unfortunately, these studies focused on single, main, presenting, or so-called “chief complaints”. Therefore, it was never taken into account that most patients present with more than one symptom [42, 43]. Constructs of “chief complaint” or “main symptom” heavily rely on several steps of selection and reduction of information. First, the selection of individual patients: of all symptoms, patients tend to choose and present the ones deemed to be most important to them. Only systematic interviewing may elicit all symptoms perceived at presentation. Second, the individual physician’s selection: of the list of presenting symptoms, physicians tend to choose and record the so-called “chief complaint”, with a tendency to focus on frequent and specific presenting symptoms, such as chest pain, and a tendency to ignore nonspecific complaints [40].

In summary, the main findings of last decade’s research on symptoms as predictors for outcome at triage were the following:

  1. Nonspecific complaints, such as weakness, were shown to be of prognostic significance, both in terms of diagnostic uncertainty [44] and survival [42, 45]. Furthermore, older patients with atypical symptoms [46], homecare impossible [47], nonspecific complaints [48], unexplained symptoms [49], general disability [39], no cardinal symptom [40], (acute) frailty [50], or falls [51] represent a particularly vulnerable population, usually carrying a worse prognosis than all other emergency patients [52].
  2. Chest pain could no longer be shown to be predictive of mortality, but only for subsequent interventions and intensive care [42]. Chest pain patients are among the first to be assessed by emergency physicians, although prevalence and mortality of myocardial infarction have continuously declined in ED patients with chest pain in the last 20 years [53]. Interestingly, a faster decline of age-adjusted mortality in women with myocardial infarction – surpassing survival in men – was shown for a Swiss population [53], but this could not be shown in the US [54]. It is still unknown why gender-related differences in outcomes are present in some healthcare systems but not in others; however, it is known that women have a different spectrum of symptoms when presenting with myocardial infarction [55]. Owing to a low awareness about these differences, women traditionally suffered from delays in pre-hospital and hospital assessment with associated higher mortality [56]. Therefore, the prospective assessment of symptoms at triage is still very much needed. Unfortunately, most studies [5759] relied on retrospective assessment of information from medical records, which is highly associated with information bias.
  3. Dyspnoea was previously known to be of prognostic significance [60], but the measurement of respiratory parameters at triage has remained problematic [34] despite its immense prognostic importance [61, 62]; simple clinical evaluation is a challenge [63]. In older patients particularly, the perception of dyspnoea is impaired. Therefore, the objective measurement of, for example, respiratory rate is of utmost importance in order to avoid under-triage. New technology might help in this regard [64, 65].
  4. Combination of vital signs with warning scores, for example in combination with biomarkers, could help to identify low-risk patients [66]. Other – non-traditional – “vital signs” such as mental status [6769], mobility [70, 71] [72] and frailty [73] have been advocated.
  5. Research on patients presenting with multiple symptoms showed an increased demand for resources and hospitalisation, but no evidence of adverse outcomes such as acute morbidity [74] or mortality [43]. Interestingly, certain combinations of symptoms, such as weakness and fatigue [75], may predict adverse outcomes – a strong indication that systematically assessing symptoms at triage may add prognostic information.

Advances due to symptom-oriented research at work-up

Patients presenting to EDs are a vulnerable population, as they face an unclear short-term future regarding the seriousness of their condition and mortality. Formal triage allows separation different groups at presentation, with short-term mortality ranging from 0% to 25%, depending on acuity and diagnosis [76]. However, establishing a sound diagnosis takes time, leading to further anxiety on the patients’ side, as well as insecurities on the caregivers’ side. Unfortunately, a longer ED length-of-stay carries a worse prognosis [77, 78], even when physiological, demographic and co-morbidity factors are taken into account. Therefore, an early and accurate diagnosis is the second cornerstone of emergency medicine. How can a precise diagnosis be established within a few hours after presentation to the ED? This process is commonly called “work-up” and consists of a standardised and stepwise approach to the patients’ problems. First, the main problem has to be identified. As pointed out, there may be a difference between the patients’ perceived main problems and the “chief complaints” defined by the caregivers. The most advanced recent studies have focused on the post-hoc classification of chief complaints by means of recurrent neural networks [79]. However, this technology is more useful for syndromic surveillance of a population than for the establishment of an accurate diagnosis in an individual. In the future, such algorithms have the potential to support diagnosis of ED patients in a short time. At present, the patients’ complaints are categorised, and recent publications [80] presented long lists of over 500 complaints, some specific for a certain group of diseases (e.g., chest pain), and others nonspecific owing to the wide range of underlying disease (e.g., weakness or fatigue). Common to all specific complaints is the standardised work-up, algorithm or protocol assigned to each complaint. Most major EDs have access to protocol-based care, such as www.medStandards.org. Protocol-based care has been shown to be safe and effective in, for example, sepsis [81] or circulatory arrest [82]. In the case of sepsis it was not shown to be superior to usual care. However, there is still a lack of research on the economical, standardised every-day work-up of headache, leg pain, back pain, abdominal pain, chest pain and dyspnoea – specific complaints on the top-10 list in most EDs [42]. Reviews of the few studies on pathway- or protocol-based care in these fields have so far found limited evidence of their impact on outcomes [83], but barriers and critical factors in implementation still need to be identified [84]. Algorithms, pathways, standards and protocols have been embraced by emergency medicine at a very early stage, and no ED would relinquish its own protocols. Although some protocols are very similar across countries and continents [85], others differ widely [86]. Interestingly, the sheer adherence to protocols is highly associated with outcomes, such as mortality, more so than the content of the individual protocols [87].

There are different types of protocols. Some are symptom-based, others are problem-based or diagnosis-based. Diagnosis-based protocols are widely used in emergency medicine, but only “downstream” of the initial assessment in which the symptoms must be assessed and weighted, and differential diagnoses carefully considered before triggering a diagnosis-based protocol. There is indirect evidence that symptom-triggered protocols may be beneficial: in the case of specific complaints, the accuracy of ED diagnoses is high, whereas in nonspecific complaints, the accuracy of ED diagnoses is low [88]. This may in part be explained by the fact that no protocols exist for nonspecific complaints, but also by the wide range of underlying disease in nonspecific presentation, which favours the probability of a mismatch [89]. Therefore, in a nonspecific presentation, other concepts were developed for risk stratification, such as the frameworks of “acute morbidity” [74] or “acuity” [45, 48]. Both can support risk stratification in a phase in which diagnoses are still unclear. However, early disposition is preferred to a longer stay or even “wait-and-see” in the busy ED, where lack of resources is a major problem. Improving resource allocation merits more attention [90].

Advances due to symptom-oriented research at disposition

Once triage, work-up and initial treatment are completed, a disposition decision has to be made. Disposition should be based on prognosis [91], as disposition decisions are of medical and economic importance – the latter being of increasing significance owing to waning resources in acute care. Therefore, hospitalisation of low-risk patients should be minimised in order to assign the remaining resources to high-risk patients. The four typical disposition decisions are discharge (home), admission (to hospital), direct intervention (e.g., in the operating room) or transfer of the patient (e.g., to specialised geriatric care) [92].

Discharge is indicated for patients at low risk (of complications, further deterioration, or death). This excludes patients needing hospitalisation for “logistic reasons”. Therefore, risk stratification at disposition is of vital importance, death shortly after discharge being dreaded by all physicians. Patients who were evaluated in an ED and suffer from early unanticipated death at home could well be victims of medical errors [93]. Ten years ago, little was known about the frequency of such events or about factors that might contribute to them. In one large retrospective study, four topics emerged when patterns of potential preventable medical error were sought: atypical presentation, decompensating chronic disease, interpretation of vital signs and mental issues (including substance abuse) [93]. Similarly, in a large study of insurance claims data, altered mental status, dyspnoea and malaise/fatigue were more common among early deaths after ED discharge [94]. As only a few symptoms, such as skin rash or dysphagia can be used for the exclusion of notable risk [42], formal triage has emerged as the main tool to predict early and safe discharge.

Hospital admission is usually indicated for patients at risk of complications, further deterioration or death. Avoiding hospitalisation, on the other hand, has many advantages: most importantly, patients will most likely prefer this. With an ever increasing number of presentations, crowding is a long known problem for urban EDs in Switzerland [95] and worldwide [96, 97]. Crowding is the result of a mismatch between ED capacity and the number of patients presenting in a given period of time [98]. It is known, that crowding is associated with increased ED length of stay (LOS), risk of readmission, increased diagnostic error and increased mortality. [99, 100] “Wait and see” is therefore not an option, and optimising disposition is one of the key factors for efficient throughput management. Specialised units are among the alternatives studied. “Fast track units” have shown benefits in disposition of low-acuity patients [101]. However, disposition of medium-acuity patients is a substantial challenge, as fast-tracking is not an option. An isolated concept of a “midtrack area” for uncomplicated medium-acuity patients showed decreased ED LOS [102]. Other concepts, such as streamlining front-end operations, potentially lead to an improvement of ED LOS [103, 104]. However, all these concepts depend on accurate triage and the evidence for the optimal ED front-end strategy is highly debated [105]. The fact that up to half of all medium-acuity patients are hospitalised makes the economic significance of disposition evident. There are attempts to predict the safety of disposition [106] by use of models including variables such as gender, arrival mode, age and (vital) signs. Such models showed the feasibility of disposition prediction as early as at presentation to the ED [13, 107]. As an example, certain symptoms strongly predict hospitalisation (weakness, fatigue, dyspnoea, fever, vomiting, loss of appetite and speech disorder) [42]. This shows that we not only need to study evidence-based disposition in the future, but also the prediction of disposition in order to improve flow-management, thereby reducing unnecessary cost.

Specialised geriatric care is usually indicated for frail older patients in need of comprehensive assessment. Not all older patients are equally susceptible to (minor) stressors, such as urinary tract infections. Whereas most patients only experience a minor decline in function, followed by a return to homeostasis, frail patients are more seriously affected and do not regain their baseline level of health and independence [108]. the prevalence of frailty increases with age [109] and frail patients have a significantly higher risk for adverse outcomes, such as falls, institutionalisation and mortality, than non-frail patients in the same age group [110112]. Several tools for identification of frail patients have been introduced and studied [113]. An easy-to-use screening tool is the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) developed in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) [114]. The CFS has been found to be an independent predictor for in-hospital mortality and LOS in inpatients [115, 116]. Other simple measures for identifying frailty have been identified; gait speed, for example, has been shown to be the best parameter to rule out frailty in community-dwelling older people due to its high sensitivity [117]. However, outcomes in patients are not solely dependent on their degree of frailty (susceptibility), but also on the acute illness severity (stressor). The combination of the CFS as a screening tool for frailty with an aggregated vital sign score as a measure of acute illness severity leads to improved prediction of inpatient mortality [73]. In addition, disposition decisions frequently change after observation of frail older patients [100]. Future research should focus on the reduction of early and risky discharge in frail older patients while improving early identification of frailty and the necessity of comprehensive geriatric assessment. Hospitalisation of frail older patients is not free of risk, particularly in acute care settings. The use of physical restraints, use of a urinary catheter, occurrence of a fall, a pressure ulcer, sleep deprivation, acute malnutrition, dehydration and occurrence of aspiration pneumonia increased mortality in hospitalised delirious patients in a graded manner, and were responsible for a significant percentage of the association of delirium with death [118]. Therefore, only thorough consideration of possible harms versus benefits can predict the likelihood of successful hospitalisation, the question being: “Is this patient safe for admission?” [119]

Conclusion

The last decade’s advances in symptom-oriented research in emergency medicine were the definition of nonspecific complaints as an entity, the shift from triage based on expert opinion to triage based on evidence, and risk stratification improving work-up, resource allocation and disposition. Future research and training should therefore focus on the constant guaging of risk and benefit, diagnosis and prognosis, as well as admission versus discharge.

Financial disclosure

No financial support was reported.

Potential competing interests

RB and CHN are editors of MedStandards.org.

Credits

Header image: © H368k742 - Dreamstime.com

Correspondence

Roland Bingisser, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 2, CH-4031 Basel, roland.bingisser[at]usb.ch

References

1 Nadif R. Genetic insights into moderate-to-severe asthma. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(1):2–3. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30447-8 PubMed

2 Saffitz JE. Editorial commentary: Nuclear receptors and a network biology approach to understanding and treating heart disease. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019;29(8):438–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2018.12.001 PubMed

3 Mantzouranis EC, Boikos SA, Chlouverakis G. Throat clearing - a novel asthma symptom in children. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(15):1502–3. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200304103481520 PubMed

4 Fraser H, Coiera E, Wong D. Safety of patient-facing digital symptom checkers. Lancet. 2018;392(10161):2263–4. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32819-8 PubMed

5 Bingisser R, Nickel CH. The last century of symptom-oriented research in emergency presentations--have we made any progress?Swiss Med Wkly. 2013;143:w13829. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.4414/smw.2013.13829 PubMed

6 Boswell MV, Giordano J. Reflection, analysis and change: the decade of pain control and research and its lessons for the future of pain management. Pain Physician. 2009;12(6):923–8. PubMed

7 Brennan F. The US Congressional “Decade on Pain Control and Research” 2001-2011: A Review. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2015;29(3):212–27. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/15360288.2015.1047553 PubMed

8 Geraldine McMahon C, Yates DW, Hollis S. Unexpected mortality in patients discharged from the emergency department following an episode of nontraumatic chest pain. Eur J Emerg Med. 2008;15(1):3–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0b013e32827b14cd PubMed

9 www.obsan.admin.ch. website accessed August 14th 2019: https://www.obsan.admin.ch/sites/default/files/publications/2015/arbeitsdokument-30.pdf.

10 Kempny A, McCabe C, Dimopoulos K, Price LC, Wilde M, Limbrey R, et al.Incidence, mortality and bleeding rates associated with pulmonary embolism in England between 1997 and 2015. Int J Cardiol. 2019;277:229–34. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.10.001 PubMed

11 Heneghan C, Glasziou P, Thompson M, Rose P, Balla J, Lasserson D, et al.Diagnostic strategies used in primary care. BMJ. 2009;338(apr20 1):b946. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b946 PubMed

12 Rosendal M, Carlsen AH, Rask MT, Moth G. Symptoms as the main problem in primary care: A cross-sectional study of frequency and characteristics. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(2):91–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02813432.2015.1030166 PubMed

13 Bosia T, Malinovska A, Weigel K, Schmid F, Nickel CH, Bingisser R. Risk of adverse outcome in patients referred by emergency medical services in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2017;147:w14554. PubMed

14 Hinson JS, Martinez DA, Cabral S, George K, Whalen M, Hansoti B, et al.Triage Performance in Emergency Medicine: A Systematic Review. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74(1):140–52. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.09.022 PubMed

15 Ryan RJ, Lindsell CJ, Hollander JE, O’Neil B, Jackson R, Schreiber D, et al.A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing central laboratory and point-of-care cardiac marker testing strategies: the Disposition Impacted by Serial Point of Care Markers in Acute Coronary Syndromes (DISPO-ACS) trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(3):321–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.06.464 PubMed

16 Hastings SN, Purser JL, Johnson KS, Sloane RJ, Whitson HE. Frailty predicts some but not all adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(9):1651–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01840.x PubMed

17 Weinerman ER, Ratner RS, Robbins A, Lavenhar MA. Yale studies in ambulatory medical care. V. Determinants of use of hospital emergency services. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1966;56(7):1037–56. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.56.7.1037 PubMed

18 Cooke MW, Jinks S. Does the Manchester triage system detect the critically ill?J Accid Emerg Med. 1999;16(3):179–81. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emj.16.3.179 PubMed

19 Wennike N, Williams E, Frost S, Masding M. Nurse-led triage of acute medical admissions: accurate and time-efficient. Br J Nurs. 2007;16(13):824–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.13.24251 PubMed

20 Nickel CH, Grossmann FF, Christ M, Bingisser R. Triage: ESI oder Manchester Triage?Med Klin Intensivmed Notf Med. 2016;111(2):134–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00063-015-0132-x

21 Grossmann FF, Nickel CH, Christ M, Schneider K, Spirig R, Bingisser R. Transporting clinical tools to new settings: cultural adaptation and validation of the Emergency Severity Index in German. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(3):257–64. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.07.021 PubMed

22 Mackway-Jones K, Manchester Triage Group. Emergency Triage. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 1997.

23 Dezman ZD, Mattu A, Body R. Utility of the History and Physical Examination in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Emergency Department Patients. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(4):752–60. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.3.32666 PubMed

24 Body R, Cook G, Burrows G, Carley S, Lewis PS. Can emergency physicians ‘rule in’ and ‘rule out’ acute myocardial infarction with clinical judgement?Emerg Med J. 2014;31(11):872–6. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2014-203832 PubMed

25 Canto JG, Shlipak MG, Rogers WJ, Malmgren JA, Frederick PD, Lambrew CT, et al.Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and mortality among patients with myocardial infarction presenting without chest pain. JAMA. 2000;283(24):3223–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.24.3223 PubMed

26 Hinson JS, Martinez DA, Cabral S, George K, Whalen M, Hansoti B, et al.Triage Performance in Emergency Medicine: A Systematic Review. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74(1):140–52. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.09.022 PubMed

27 Parenti N, Reggiani MLB, Iannone P, Percudani D, Dowding D. A systematic review on the validity and reliability of an emergency department triage scale, the Manchester Triage System. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(7):1062–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.01.013 PubMed

28 Ebrahimi M, Heydari A, Mazlom R, Mirhaghi A. The reliability of the Australasian Triage Scale: a meta-analysis. World J Emerg Med. 2015;6(2):94–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2015.02.002 PubMed

29 Mistry B, Stewart De Ramirez S, Kelen G, Schmitz PSK, Balhara KS, Levin S, et al.Accuracy and Reliability of Emergency Department Triage Using the Emergency Severity Index: An International Multicenter Assessment. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(5):581–587.e3. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.09.036 PubMed

30 Dugas AF, Kirsch TD, Toerper M, Korley F, Yenokyan G, France D, et al.An Electronic Emergency Triage System to Improve Patient Distribution by Critical Outcomes. J Emerg Med. 2016;50(6):910–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.02.026 PubMed

31 Hocker MB, Gerardo CJ, Theiling BJ, Villani J, Donohoe R, Sandesara H, et al.NHAMCS Validation of Emergency Severity Index as an Indicator of Emergency Department Resource Utilization. West J Emerg Med. 2018;19(5):855–62. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2018.7.37556 PubMed

32 Hinson JS, Martinez DA, Schmitz PSK, Toerper M, Radu D, Scheulen J, et al.Accuracy of emergency department triage using the Emergency Severity Index and independent predictors of under-triage and over-triage in Brazil: a retrospective cohort analysis. Int J Emerg Med. 2018;11(1):3. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12245-017-0161-8 PubMed

33 Kwak H, Suh GJ, Kim T, Kwon WY, Kim KS, Jung YS, et al.Prognostic performance of Emergency Severity Index (ESI) combined with qSOFA score. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(10):1784–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.088 PubMed

34 Grossmann FF, Zumbrunn T, Ciprian S, Stephan FP, Woy N, Bingisser R, et al.Undertriage in older emergency department patients--tilting against windmills?PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e106203. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106203 PubMed

35 Malinovska A, Pitasch L, Geigy N, Nickel CH, Bingisser R. Modification of the Emergency Severity Index Improves Mortality Prediction in Older Patients. West J Emerg Med. 2019;20(4):633–40. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.5811//westjem.2019.4.40031 PubMed

36 Levin S, Toerper M, Hamrock E, Hinson JS, Barnes S, Gardner H, et al.Machine-Learning-Based Electronic Triage More Accurately Differentiates Patients With Respect to Clinical Outcomes Compared With the Emergency Severity Index. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(5):565–574.e2. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.08.005 PubMed

37 Aronsky D, Jones I, Raines B, Hemphill R, Mayberry SR, Luther MA, et al. An integrated computerized triage system in the emergency department. AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium. 2008:16-20.

38 Chan W, Mason J, Grock A. The Long and Winding Triage Road. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(5):575–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.03.021 PubMed

39 Safwenberg U, Terént A, Lind L. The Emergency Department presenting complaint as predictor of in-hospital fatality. Eur J Emerg Med. 2007;14(6):324–31. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0b013e32827b14dd PubMed

40 Mockel M, Searle J, Muller R, Slagman A, Storchmann H, Oestereich P, et al.Chief complaints in medical emergencies: do they relate to underlying disease and outcome? The Charité Emergency Medicine Study (CHARITEM). Eur J Emerg Med. 2013;20(2):103–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328351e609 PubMed

41 Safwenberg U, Terént A, Lind L. Differences in long-term mortality for different emergency department presenting complaints. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(1):9–16. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2007.00004.x PubMed

42 Bingisser R, Dietrich M, Nieves Ortega R, Malinovska A, Bosia T, Nickel CH. Systematically assessed symptoms as outcome predictors in emergency patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;45:8–12. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2017.09.013 PubMed

43 Weigel K, Nickel CH, Malinovska A, Bingisser R. Symptoms at presentation to the emergency department: Predicting outcomes and changing clinical practice?Int J Clin Pract. 2018;72(1):e13033. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13033 PubMed

44 Sauter TC, Capaldo G, Hoffmann M, Birrenbach T, Hautz SC, Kämmer JE, et al.Non-specific complaints at emergency department presentation result in unclear diagnoses and lengthened hospitalization: a prospective observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018;26(1):60. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0526-x PubMed

45 Malinovska A, Nickel CH, Bingisser R. Trajectories of survival in patients with nonspecific complaints. Eur J Intern Med. 2018;55:e17–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2018.06.020 PubMed

46 Jarrett PG, Rockwood K, Carver D, Stolee P, Cosway S. Illness presentation in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(10):1060–4. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1995.00430100086010 PubMed

47 Rutschmann OT, Chevalley T, Zumwald C, Luthy C, Vermeulen B, Sarasin FP. Pitfalls in the emergency department triage of frail elderly patients without specific complaints. Swiss Med Wkly. 2005;135(9-10):145–50. PubMed

48 Nemec M, Koller MT, Nickel CH, Maile S, Winterhalder C, Karrer C, et al.Patients presenting to the emergency department with non-specific complaints: the Basel Non-specific Complaints (BANC) study. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(3):284–92. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00658.x PubMed

49 van Bokhoven MA, Koch H, van der Weijden T, Grol RP, Bindels PJ, Dinant GJ. Blood test ordering for unexplained complaints in general practice: the VAMPIRE randomised clinical trial protocol. [ISRCTN55755886][ISRCTN55755886].BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7(1):20. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-7-20 PubMed

50 Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al.; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–57. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146 PubMed

51 Liu SW, Sri-On J, Tirrell GP, Nickel C, Bingisser R. Serious conditions for ED elderly fall patients: a secondary analysis of the Basel Non-Specific Complaints study. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(8):1394–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2016.04.007 PubMed

52 Wachelder JJH, Stassen PM, Hubens LPAM, Brouns SHA, Lambooij SLE, Dieleman JP, et al.Elderly emergency patients presenting with non-specific complaints: Characteristics and outcomes. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188954. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188954 PubMed

53 Radovanovic D, Seifert B, Roffi M, Urban P, Rickli H, Pedrazzini G, et al.Gender differences in the decrease of in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction during the last 20 years in Switzerland. Open Heart. 2017;4(2):e000689. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2017-000689 PubMed

54 Wilmot KA, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S, Ford ES, Vaccarino V. Coronary Heart Disease Mortality Declines in the United States From 1979 Through 2011: Evidence for Stagnation in Young Adults, Especially Women. Circulation. 2015;132(11):997–1002. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015293 PubMed

55 Sederholm Lawesson S, Isaksson RM, Thylén I, Ericsson M, Ängerud K, Swahn E; SymTime Study Group. Gender differences in symptom presentation of ST-elevation myocardial infarction - An observational multicenter survey study. Int J Cardiol. 2018;264:7–11. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.03.084 PubMed

56 Lawesson SS, Alfredsson J, Fredrikson M, Swahn E. A gender perspective on short- and long term mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction--a report from the SWEDEHEART register. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(2):1041–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.10.028 PubMed

57 Berg J, Björck L, Dudas K, Lappas G, Rosengren A. Symptoms of a first acute myocardial infarction in women and men. Gend Med. 2009;6(3):454–62. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.genm.2009.09.007 PubMed

58 Isaksson RM, Holmgren L, Lundblad D, Brulin C, Eliasson M. Time trends in symptoms and prehospital delay time in women vs. men with myocardial infarction over a 15-year period. The Northern Sweden MONICA Study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008;7(2):152–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2007.09.001 PubMed

59 Milner KA, Vaccarino V, Arnold AL, Funk M, Goldberg RJ. Gender and age differences in chief complaints of acute myocardial infarction (Worcester Heart Attack Study). Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(5):606–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2003.11.028 PubMed

60 Kellett J, Deane B. The Simple Clinical Score predicts mortality for 30 days after admission to an acute medical unit. QJM. 2006;99(11):771–81. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcl112 PubMed

61 Goldhill DR, Worthington L, Mulcahy A, Tarling M, Sumner A. The patient-at-risk team: identifying and managing seriously ill ward patients. Anaesthesia. 1999;54(9):853–60. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00996.x PubMed

62 Subbe CP, Davies RG, Williams E, Rutherford P, Gemmell L. Effect of introducing the Modified Early Warning score on clinical outcomes, cardio-pulmonary arrests and intensive care utilisation in acute medical admissions. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(8):797–802. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03258.x PubMed

63 Cretikos MA, Bellomo R, Hillman K, Chen J, Finfer S, Flabouris A. Respiratory rate: the neglected vital sign. Med J Aust. 2008;188(11):657–9. PubMed

64 Becker C, Achermann S, Rocque M, Kirenko I, Schlack A, Dreher-Hummel T, et al.Camera-based measurement of respiratory rates is reliable. Eur J Emerg Med. 2018;25(6):416–22. PubMed

65 Achermann S, Caspar M, Wirth C, Becker C, Rocque M, Kirenko I, et al.Contact-free monitoring of respiratory rates for triage of patients presenting to the emergency department. Resuscitation. 2019;137:154–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.01.041 PubMed

66 Nickel CH, Kellett J, Cooksley T, Bingisser R, Henriksen DP, Brabrand M. Combined use of the National Early Warning Score and D-dimer levels to predict 30-day and 365-day mortality in medical patients. Resuscitation. 2016;106:49–52. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.06.012 PubMed

67 Grossmann FF, Hasemann W, Kressig RW, Bingisser R, Nickel CH. Performance of the modified Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale in identifying delirium in older ED patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(9):1324–6. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.05.025 PubMed

68 Hasemann W, Grossmann FF, Stadler R, Bingisser R, Breil D, Hafner M, et al.Screening and detection of delirium in older ED patients: performance of the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). A two-step tool. Intern Emerg Med. 2018;13(6):915–22. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11739-017-1781-y PubMed

69 Clifford M, Ridley A, Gleeson M, Kellett J. The early mortality associated with agitation and sedation in acutely ill medical patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2013;24(8):e85. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2013.08.707 PubMed

70 Nickel CH, Kellett J, Nieves Ortega R, Lyngholm L, Wasingya-Kasereka L, Brabrand M. Mobility Identifies Acutely Ill Patients at Low Risk of In-Hospital Mortality: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Chest. 2019;156(2):316–22. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.001 PubMed

71 Laugesen SKN, Nissen SK, Kellett J, Brabrand M, Cooksley T, Nickel CH. Impaired Mobility, Rather Than Frailty, Should Be a Vital Sign. Chest. 2019;155(4):877–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.11.029 PubMed

72 Brabrand M, Kellett J, Opio M, Cooksley T, Nickel CH. Should impaired mobility on presentation be a vital sign?Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62(7):945–52. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aas.13098 PubMed

73 Romero-Ortuno R, Wallis S, Biram R, Keevil V. Clinical frailty adds to acute illness severity in predicting mortality in hospitalized older adults: An observational study. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;35:24–34. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.08.033 PubMed

74 Schmid F, Malinovska A, Weigel K, Bosia T, Nickel CH, Bingisser R. Construct validity of acute morbidity as a novel outcome for emergency patients. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0207906. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207906 PubMed

75 Kuster T, Nickel CH, Jenny MA, Blaschke LL, Bingisser R. Combinations of Symptoms in Emergency Presentations: Prevalence and Outcome. J Clin Med. 2019;8(3):345. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8030345 PubMed

76 Grossmann FF, Nickel CH, Christ M, Schneider K, Spirig R, Bingisser R. Transporting clinical tools to new settings: cultural adaptation and validation of the Emergency Severity Index in German. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(3):257–64. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.07.021 PubMed

77 Singer AJ, Thode HC, Viccellio P, Pines JM. The association between length of emergency department boarding and mortality. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(12):1324–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01236.x PubMed

78 Mowery NT, Dougherty SD, Hildreth AN, Holmes JH, Chang MC, Martin RS, et al.Emergency department length of stay is an independent predictor of hospital mortality in trauma activation patients. J Trauma. 2011;70(6):1317–25. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182175199 PubMed

79 Lee SH, Levin D, Finley PD, Heilig CM. Chief complaint classification with recurrent neural networks. J Biomed Inform. 2019;93:103158. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103158 PubMed

80 Rice BT, Bisanzo M, Maling S, Joseph R, Mowafi H; Global Emergency Care Investigators Group (Study Group). Derivation and validation of a chief complaint shortlist for unscheduled acute and emergency care in Uganda. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e020188. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020188 PubMed

81 Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, Barnato AE, Weissfeld LA, Pike F, et al., ProCESS Investigators. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683–93. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1401602 PubMed

82 Appoo JJ, Augoustides JG, Pochettino A, Savino JS, McGarvey ML, Cowie DC, et al.; Improving Clinical Outcomes through Clinical Research Investigators. Perioperative outcome in adults undergoing elective deep hypothermic circulatory arrest with retrograde cerebral perfusion in proximal aortic arch repair: evaluation of protocol-based care. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2006;20(1):3–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2005.08.005 PubMed

83 Hunter B, Segrott J. Re-mapping client journeys and professional identities: a review of the literature on clinical pathways. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45(4):608–25. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.04.001 PubMed

84 Dong W, Huang Z. A Method to Evaluate Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of Clinical Pathways. Appl Clin Inform. 2015;6(4):650–68. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2015-05-RA-0054 PubMed

85 Wildi K, Boeddinghaus J, Nestelberger T, Twerenbold R, Badertscher P, Wussler D, et al.; APACE investigators. Comparison of fourteen rule-out strategies for acute myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2019;283:41–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.11.140 PubMed

86 Schuetz P, Christ-Crain M, Thomann R, Falconnier C, Wolbers M, Widmer I, et al.; ProHOSP Study Group. Effect of procalcitonin-based guidelines vs standard guidelines on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: the ProHOSP randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(10):1059–66. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1297 PubMed

87 Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund J, DeLong ER, Lytle BL, Brindis RG, et al.Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1912–20. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.16.1912 PubMed

88 Peng A, Rohacek M, Ackermann S, Ilsemann-Karakoumis J, Ghanim L, Messmer AS, et al.The proportion of correct diagnoses is low in emergency patients with nonspecific complaints presenting to the emergency department. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14121. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.4414/smw.2015.14121 PubMed

89 Karakoumis J, Nickel CH, Kirsch M, Rohacek M, Geigy N, Müller B, et al.Emergency Presentations With Nonspecific Complaints-the Burden of Morbidity and the Spectrum of Underlying Disease: Nonspecific Complaints and Underlying Disease. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(26):e840. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000840 PubMed

90 Ruger JP, Lewis LM, Richter CJ. Identifying high-risk patients for triage and resource allocation in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25(7):794–8. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2007.01.014 PubMed

91 Kellett J, Nickel CH, Skyttberg N, Brabrand M. Is it possible to quickly identify acutely unwell patients who can be safely managed as outpatients? The need for a “Universal Safe to Discharge Score”. Eur J Intern Med. 2019;67:e13–5. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2019.07.018 PubMed

92 Harding A. Triage, diagnose, treatment, and disposition (‘2 TDs’). J Emerg Nurs. 2009;35(6):546–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2009.04.014 PubMed

93 Sklar DP, Crandall CS, Loeliger E, Edmunds K, Paul I, Helitzer DL. Unanticipated death after discharge home from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(6):735–45. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.11.018 PubMed

94 Obermeyer Z, Cohn B, Wilson M, Jena AB, Cutler DM. Early death after discharge from emergency departments: analysis of national US insurance claims data. BMJ. 2017;356:j239. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j239 PubMed

95 Sanchez B, Hirzel AH, Bingisser R, Ciurea A, Exadaktylos A, Lehmann B, et al.State of Emergency Medicine in Switzerland: a national profile of emergency departments in 2006. Int J Emerg Med. 2013;6(1):23. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1865-1380-6-23 PubMed

96 Jayaprakash N, O’Sullivan R, Bey T, Ahmed SS, Lotfipour S. Crowding and delivery of healthcare in emergency departments: the European perspective. West J Emerg Med. 2009;10(4):233–9. PubMed

97 Pines JM, Bernstein SL. Solving the worldwide emergency department crowding problem - what can we learn from an Israeli ED?Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015;4(1):52. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13584-015-0049-0 PubMed

98 Moskop JC, Geiderman JM, Marshall KD, McGreevy J, Derse AR, Bookman K, et al.Another Look at the Persistent Moral Problem of Emergency Department Crowding. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74(3):357–64. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.11.029 PubMed

99 Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, Stankovich J, Kinsman L. Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0203316. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203316 PubMed

100 Misch F, Messmer AS, Nickel CH, Gujan M, Graber A, Blume K, et al.Impact of observation on disposition of elderly patients presenting to emergency departments with non-specific complaints. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e98097. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098097 PubMed

101 Sanchez M, Smally AJ, Grant RJ, Jacobs LM. Effects of a fast-track area on emergency department performance. J Emerg Med. 2006;31(1):117–20. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2005.08.019 PubMed

102 Soremekun OA, Shofer FS, Grasso D, Mills AM, Moore J, Datner EM. The effect of an emergency department dedicated midtrack area on patient flow. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(4):434–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acem.12345 PubMed

103 Liu SW, Hamedani AG, Brown DFM, Asplin B, Camargo CA. Established and novel initiatives to reduce crowding in emergency departments. West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(2):85–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2012.11.12171 PubMed

104 Lauks J, Mramor B, Baumgartl K, Maier H, Nickel CH, Bingisser R. Medical Team Evaluation: Effect on Emergency Department Waiting Time and Length of Stay. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0154372. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154372 PubMed

105 Wiler JL, Gentle C, Halfpenny JM, Heins A, Mehrotra A, Mikhail MG, et al.Optimizing emergency department front-end operations. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(2):142–160.e1. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.05.021 PubMed

106 Long B, Koyfman A. Best Clinical Practice: Controversies in Outpatient Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism. J Emerg Med. 2017;52(5):668–79. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.11.020 PubMed

107 Riordan JP, Dell WL, Patrie JT. Can Patient Variables Measured on Arrival to the Emergency Department Predict Disposition in Medium-acuity Patients?J Emerg Med. 2017;52(5):769–79. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.11.018 PubMed

108 Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381(9868):752–62. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9 PubMed

109 Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(8):1487–92. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04054.x PubMed

110 Song X, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Prevalence and 10-year outcomes of frailty in older adults in relation to deficit accumulation. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(4):681–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02764.x PubMed

111 Rockwood K, Howlett SE, MacKnight C, Beattie BL, Bergman H, Hébert R, et al.Prevalence, attributes, and outcomes of fitness and frailty in community-dwelling older adults: report from the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59(12):1310–7. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.12.1310 PubMed

112 Ensrud KE, Ewing SK, Taylor BC, Fink HA, Cawthon PM, Stone KL, et al.Comparison of 2 frailty indexes for prediction of falls, disability, fractures, and death in older women. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(4):382–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2007.113 PubMed

113 Sternberg SA, Wershof Schwartz A, Karunananthan S, Bergman H, Mark Clarfield A. The identification of frailty: a systematic literature review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(11):2129–38. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03597.x PubMed

114 Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan DB, McDowell I, et al.A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173(5):489–95. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050051 PubMed

115 Basic D, Shanley C. Frailty in an older inpatient population: using the clinical frailty scale to predict patient outcomes. J Aging Health. 2015;27(4):670–85. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898264314558202 PubMed

116 Wallis SJ, Wall J, Biram RWS, Romero-Ortuno R. Association of the clinical frailty scale with hospital outcomes. QJM. 2015;108(12):943–9. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcv066 PubMed

117 Clegg A, Rogers L, Young J. Diagnostic test accuracy of simple instruments for identifying frailty in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2015;44(1):148–52. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu157 PubMed

118 Dharmarajan K, Swami S, Gou RY, Jones RN, Inouye SK. Pathway from Delirium to Death: Potential In-Hospital Mediators of Excess Mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(5):1026–33. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14743 PubMed

119 Arendts G, Burkett E, Hullick C, Carpenter CR, Nagaraj G, Visvanathan R. Frailty, thy name is…. Emerg Med Australas. 2017;29(6):712–6. doi:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.12869 PubMed

Verpassen Sie keinen Artikel!

close