Marja Storm - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Marja Storm

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2009

Objectives: To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) a... more Objectives: To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Methods: 50 representative emergency department (ED) scenarios derived from actual cases were presented to 18 ED nurses from three different hospitals. Eight of them were familiar with MTS, six with ESI and four were not familiar but trained in both systems. They independently assigned triage scores to each scenario according to the triage system(s) they were familiar with. After 4-6 weeks the same nurses again judged the scenarios in a different order. Unanimity in judgement and unweighted and quadratic-weighted kappas were calculated. Results: Unanimity in judgement for MTS was 90% and for ESI 73%. One-level disagreement was found in 8% and 23% of the cases, respectively. Interobserver unweighted kappas were 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.83) for MTS and 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.55) for ESI. Quadratic-weighted kappas were 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.83), respectively. At 4-6 weeks, one-level intraobserver disagreements were 10% and 22% and 2-level disagreement 1% and 2%, respectively. Intra-observer unweighted kappas were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94) for MTS and 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) for ESI. Conclusion: Using paper-based clinical scenarios, MTS was found to have a greater inter and intra-observer agreement than ESI.

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2013

Objectives To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction an... more Objectives To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction and distribution of waiting times over levels of urgency before and after the implementation of the Manchester Triage system (MTS) at an emergency department (ED). Methods Before and after study, by means of timeline measurements and questionnaires on satisfaction in two consecutive patient series (n=1808). Questionnaires covered aspects of provision of information, opportunity given to explain problems, waiting time and sorting out the problem. After implementation of MTS, patients were triaged between 12:00 and 22:00. Subanalysis was performed on triaging and non-triaging; and between urgency levels. Results Waiting time did not decrease after implementation of the MTS, however, treatment time and LOS were significantly longer. Total LOS did not differ. After implementation, waiting time was better distributed over urgency levels. Furthermore, after implementation, patient satisfaction scored significantly lower on the provision of information and opportunity to explain their problems, however, waiting time and the feeling that their problem had been sorted out scored better. No significant differences were found between triaged and non-triaged patients. Although not significant, patients in the lower urgency levels seemed more satisfied than patients in the higher urgency levels. Conclusions Implementing MTS on its own is not sufficient to improve efficiency and quality of EDs. More complex interventions including process redesigning that targets various groups of ED patients should be evaluated in the future by using rigorous research designs for quality improvement of EDs.

Academic Emergency Medicine, 2011

The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with... more The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS). A total of 900 patients were prospectively triaged by six trained triage nurses using the three systems. Triage ratings of 421 (48%) patients treated only by emergency department (ED) physicians were compared with a reference standard determined by an expert panel. The percentage of undertriage, the sensitivity, and the specificity for each urgency level were calculated. The relationship between urgency level, resource use, hospitalization, and length of stay (LOS) in the 900 triaged patients was determined. The percentage of undertriage using the ESI (86 of 421; 20%) was significantly higher than in the MTS (48 of 421; 11%). When combining urgency levels 4 and 5, the percentage of undertriage was 8% for the informally structured system (ISS), 14% for the ESI, and 11% for the MTS. In all three systems, sensitivity for all urgency levels was low, but specificity for levels 1 and 2 was high (>92%). Sensitivity and specificity were significantly different between ESI and MTS only in urgency level 4. In all 900 patients triaged, urgency levels across all systems were associated with significantly increased resource use, hospitalization rate, and LOS. All three triage systems appear to be equally valid. Although the ESI showed the highest percentage of undertriage and the ISS the lowest, it seems preferable to use a verifiable, formally structured triage system.

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2009

To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) and the Emerg... more To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). 50 representative emergency department (ED) scenarios derived from actual cases were presented to 18 ED nurses from three different hospitals. Eight of them were familiar with MTS, six with ESI and four were not familiar but trained in both systems. They independently assigned triage scores to each scenario according to the triage system(s) they were familiar with. After 4-6 weeks the same nurses again judged the scenarios in a different order. Unanimity in judgement and unweighted and quadratic-weighted kappas were calculated. Unanimity in judgement for MTS was 90% and for ESI 73%. One-level disagreement was found in 8% and 23% of the cases, respectively. Interobserver unweighted kappas were 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.83) for MTS and 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.55) for ESI. Quadratic-weighted kappas were 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.83), respectively. At 4-6 weeks, one-level intra-observer disagreements were 10% and 22% and 2-level disagreement 1% and 2%, respectively. Intra-observer unweighted kappas were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94) for MTS and 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) for ESI. Using paper-based clinical scenarios, MTS was found to have a greater inter and intra-observer agreement than ESI.

Academic Emergency Medicine, 2011

The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with... more The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS).

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2014

To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction and distribut... more To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction and distribution of waiting times over levels of urgency before and after the implementation of the Manchester Triage system (MTS) at an emergency department (ED). Before and after study, by means of timeline measurements and questionnaires on satisfaction in two consecutive patient series (n=1808). Questionnaires covered aspects of provision of information, opportunity given to explain problems, waiting time and sorting out the problem. After implementation of MTS, patients were triaged between 12:00 and 22:00. Subanalysis was performed on triaging and non-triaging; and between urgency levels. Waiting time did not decrease after implementation of the MTS, however, treatment time and LOS were significantly longer. Total LOS did not differ. After implementation, waiting time was better distributed over urgency levels. Furthermore, after implementation, patient satisfaction scored significantly lower on the provision of information and opportunity to explain their problems, however, waiting time and the feeling that their problem had been sorted out scored better. No significant differences were found between triaged and non-triaged patients. Although not significant, patients in the lower urgency levels seemed more satisfied than patients in the higher urgency levels. Implementing MTS on its own is not sufficient to improve efficiency and quality of EDs. More complex interventions including process redesigning that targets various groups of ED patients should be evaluated in the future by using rigorous research designs for quality improvement of EDs.

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2009

Objectives: To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) a... more Objectives: To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Methods: 50 representative emergency department (ED) scenarios derived from actual cases were presented to 18 ED nurses from three different hospitals. Eight of them were familiar with MTS, six with ESI and four were not familiar but trained in both systems. They independently assigned triage scores to each scenario according to the triage system(s) they were familiar with. After 4-6 weeks the same nurses again judged the scenarios in a different order. Unanimity in judgement and unweighted and quadratic-weighted kappas were calculated. Results: Unanimity in judgement for MTS was 90% and for ESI 73%. One-level disagreement was found in 8% and 23% of the cases, respectively. Interobserver unweighted kappas were 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.83) for MTS and 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.55) for ESI. Quadratic-weighted kappas were 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.83), respectively. At 4-6 weeks, one-level intraobserver disagreements were 10% and 22% and 2-level disagreement 1% and 2%, respectively. Intra-observer unweighted kappas were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94) for MTS and 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) for ESI. Conclusion: Using paper-based clinical scenarios, MTS was found to have a greater inter and intra-observer agreement than ESI.

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2013

Objectives To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction an... more Objectives To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction and distribution of waiting times over levels of urgency before and after the implementation of the Manchester Triage system (MTS) at an emergency department (ED). Methods Before and after study, by means of timeline measurements and questionnaires on satisfaction in two consecutive patient series (n=1808). Questionnaires covered aspects of provision of information, opportunity given to explain problems, waiting time and sorting out the problem. After implementation of MTS, patients were triaged between 12:00 and 22:00. Subanalysis was performed on triaging and non-triaging; and between urgency levels. Results Waiting time did not decrease after implementation of the MTS, however, treatment time and LOS were significantly longer. Total LOS did not differ. After implementation, waiting time was better distributed over urgency levels. Furthermore, after implementation, patient satisfaction scored significantly lower on the provision of information and opportunity to explain their problems, however, waiting time and the feeling that their problem had been sorted out scored better. No significant differences were found between triaged and non-triaged patients. Although not significant, patients in the lower urgency levels seemed more satisfied than patients in the higher urgency levels. Conclusions Implementing MTS on its own is not sufficient to improve efficiency and quality of EDs. More complex interventions including process redesigning that targets various groups of ED patients should be evaluated in the future by using rigorous research designs for quality improvement of EDs.

Academic Emergency Medicine, 2011

The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with... more The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS). A total of 900 patients were prospectively triaged by six trained triage nurses using the three systems. Triage ratings of 421 (48%) patients treated only by emergency department (ED) physicians were compared with a reference standard determined by an expert panel. The percentage of undertriage, the sensitivity, and the specificity for each urgency level were calculated. The relationship between urgency level, resource use, hospitalization, and length of stay (LOS) in the 900 triaged patients was determined. The percentage of undertriage using the ESI (86 of 421; 20%) was significantly higher than in the MTS (48 of 421; 11%). When combining urgency levels 4 and 5, the percentage of undertriage was 8% for the informally structured system (ISS), 14% for the ESI, and 11% for the MTS. In all three systems, sensitivity for all urgency levels was low, but specificity for levels 1 and 2 was high (>92%). Sensitivity and specificity were significantly different between ESI and MTS only in urgency level 4. In all 900 patients triaged, urgency levels across all systems were associated with significantly increased resource use, hospitalization rate, and LOS. All three triage systems appear to be equally valid. Although the ESI showed the highest percentage of undertriage and the ISS the lowest, it seems preferable to use a verifiable, formally structured triage system.

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2009

To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) and the Emerg... more To compare inter and intra-observer agreement of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). 50 representative emergency department (ED) scenarios derived from actual cases were presented to 18 ED nurses from three different hospitals. Eight of them were familiar with MTS, six with ESI and four were not familiar but trained in both systems. They independently assigned triage scores to each scenario according to the triage system(s) they were familiar with. After 4-6 weeks the same nurses again judged the scenarios in a different order. Unanimity in judgement and unweighted and quadratic-weighted kappas were calculated. Unanimity in judgement for MTS was 90% and for ESI 73%. One-level disagreement was found in 8% and 23% of the cases, respectively. Interobserver unweighted kappas were 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.83) for MTS and 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.55) for ESI. Quadratic-weighted kappas were 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.83), respectively. At 4-6 weeks, one-level intra-observer disagreements were 10% and 22% and 2-level disagreement 1% and 2%, respectively. Intra-observer unweighted kappas were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94) for MTS and 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) for ESI. Using paper-based clinical scenarios, MTS was found to have a greater inter and intra-observer agreement than ESI.

Academic Emergency Medicine, 2011

The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with... more The objective was to compare the validity of an existing informally structured triage system with the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS).

Emergency Medicine Journal, 2014

To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction and distribut... more To compare waiting time, treatment time, length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction and distribution of waiting times over levels of urgency before and after the implementation of the Manchester Triage system (MTS) at an emergency department (ED). Before and after study, by means of timeline measurements and questionnaires on satisfaction in two consecutive patient series (n=1808). Questionnaires covered aspects of provision of information, opportunity given to explain problems, waiting time and sorting out the problem. After implementation of MTS, patients were triaged between 12:00 and 22:00. Subanalysis was performed on triaging and non-triaging; and between urgency levels. Waiting time did not decrease after implementation of the MTS, however, treatment time and LOS were significantly longer. Total LOS did not differ. After implementation, waiting time was better distributed over urgency levels. Furthermore, after implementation, patient satisfaction scored significantly lower on the provision of information and opportunity to explain their problems, however, waiting time and the feeling that their problem had been sorted out scored better. No significant differences were found between triaged and non-triaged patients. Although not significant, patients in the lower urgency levels seemed more satisfied than patients in the higher urgency levels. Implementing MTS on its own is not sufficient to improve efficiency and quality of EDs. More complex interventions including process redesigning that targets various groups of ED patients should be evaluated in the future by using rigorous research designs for quality improvement of EDs.