Abstract
Emergency triage is an important tool for prioritizing urgent or critical patients, and its effect needs to be investigated and evaluated. This observational study aimed to compare the reliability and validity of the Chinese four-level and three-district triage standard (CHT) and the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS) in an adult emergency department of a general hospital in China. From 2016-01 to 2017-01, twelve nurses independently performed on-site triage of 254 patients and 1552 patients to assess the scales' reliability and validity, respectively. The interrater reliability, as assessed by the weighted k scores, was 0.686 (95% CI 0.608-0.757) for the CHT and 0.731 (95% CI 0.663-0.790) for the ATS, and the k scores between the CHT and the ATS were 0.630 (95% CI 0.594-0.669). Temperature, respiration, pulse, blood oxygen saturation, waiting time, treatment time, emergency disposition, hospitalization rate, and mortality were significantly associated with the triage levels of the CHT and ATS (p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve values of the CHT and ATS for predicting intensive care treatment were 0.845 (95% CI: 0.825-0.866) and 0.740 (95% CI: 0.715-0.765), respectively. The reliability and validity of the CHT and ATS were moderate, and both of them can be used to identify critical patients in emergency departments. It is necessary to further improve the triage system in terms of structure and content.