Does This Patient Need to Be Evaluated Today?

Designing a Guideline-Driven Triage Process to Determine the Timing of Care for Adults with Respiratory Infection Symptoms

Published in: Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, v. 26, no. 2, Feb. 2000, p. 87-100

Posted on on December 31, 1999

by Donna L. Washington, Paul G. Shekelle, Carl Stevens

BACKGROUND: Physicians and nurses often make judgments about the urgency with which patients require evaluation, yet few explicit process-of-care criteria are available to guide these decisions. Using a multidisciplinary expert physician panel and explicit, quantitative group judgment methods, standardized, clinically detailed deferred care criteria were developed to guide emergency department and ambulatory care triage decisions for same-day versus deferred care for patients with respiratory infection symptoms. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, an eight-member multidisciplinary expert physician panel rated the safety of deferred care for standardized clinical scenarios. The ratings were converted into explicit criteria and then compared with usual implicit judgment in terms of nurse triage times. RESULTS: The panel achieved 100% consensus on 36 critical clinical factors, each of which precludes deferring care for a patient with respiratory infection symptoms. Based on combinations of 12 additional clinical factors, 48 clinical scenarios were created that the panel rated for deferred care safety. Panelists' ratings agreed for 90% of clinical scenarios. These were formatted into screening criteria. Near-perfect interrater agreement (kappa = 0.9) was found in reproducibility testing. The difference in mean nurse triage times using the criteria compared with implicit nurse judgment was 0.4 minutes (95% confidence interval = -2.1 to 2.9 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Application of explicit criteria for deferring care of patients with respiratory infection symptoms did not lengthen triage time. This approach may facilitate more efficient resource management for ambulatory settings. However, widespread use before these criteria's, our systematic criteria-based triage should be validated in multicenter clinical trials against an outcome standard and the more common implicit approach.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.