↓ Skip to main content

A reliability study of the rapid emergency triage and treatment system for children

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A reliability study of the rapid emergency triage and treatment system for children
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0207-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brita Henning, Stian Lydersen, Henrik Døllner

Abstract

To evaluate inter- and intrarater reliability of a new Scandinavian triage system for children, the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System-pediatric (RETTS-p). Two observational studies were conducted at the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED), St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. Using RETTS-p, nurses assign one of five triage priority levels to each patient on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms evaluations and vital parameter measurements. Study 1: Prior to the introduction of RETTS-p in 2012, all nurses in the PED completed a theoretical and practical training. Four months later, 19 nurses triaged 20 fictive but realistic pediatric cases two times 9 months apart (Waves A and B). Study 2: Nurse pairs consisting of a regular nurse and a research nurse simultaneously and independently triaged 200 pediatric patients who were referred with various common medical and surgical complaints. Study 1: Kendall's W for Waves A and B were 0.822 and 0.844, respectively. Using a mixed linear model, we found no difference in triage priority levels between Waves A and B. Compared to a consensus level made by the research group, the nurses rated 85.1 % fictive cases correctly, and 99 % were rated correctly or within one adjacent priority score. Study 2: The interrater correlation coefficient in a linear mixed model was 0.762, confirming a high interrater reliability in real-life triaging. We found a very high degree of agreement between nurses who used RETTS-p to prioritize children, both in a theoretical case scenarios study, but also in real-life triaging. RETTS-p may be a credible and robust triage system, but it has not been validated yet.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Student > Postgraduate 6 16%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 22%
Psychology 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,240,330
of 13,661,946 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#491
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,593
of 265,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,661,946 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them