Cited by 121Emergency and Acute Care StudiesTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Triage of geriatric patients in the emergency department: validity and survival with the Emergency Severity Index

Baumann, Michael R., Strout, Tania D.·2007·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective We evaluate the validity of the Emergency Severity Index (version 3) (ESI) triage algorithm in a geriatric emergency department (ED) population and determine the association between ESI categorization and survival.Methods Validity was assessed using a retrospective analysis of hospitalization, ED length of stay, and observed resource use compared with resource utilization estimated at triage by the ESI. Survival analysis was conducted for the same cohort. The study was exempted by the hospital institutional review board, and the requirement for informed consent was waived.Results During the investigation, 1,087 patients older than 65 years were registered in the ED. Six patients were identified as direct admissions, and 152 were found to be repeat visitors, leaving 929 subject visits for analysis. In this cohort, hospitalization was associated with ESI triage assignment (Kendall's tau-b=-0.476; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.524 to -0.425). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the predictive ability of the ESI for hospitalization was 0.77 (95% CI 0.748 to 0.806). Length of stay was associated with ESI assignment (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=.000). The relationship between triage categorization and resource utilization was significant (Spearman's correlation=-0.683; 95% CI -0.716 to -0.647). ESI categorization was associated with vital status at 1 year (Kaplan-Meier chi2 67.85; df=4; P=.0000).Conclusion When used to triage patients older than 65 years, the ESI algorithm demonstrates validity. Hospitalization, length of stay, resource utilization, and survival were all associated with ESI categorization in this cohort.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.04.011

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baumann, M. R., & Strout, T. D.
Affiliations
Maine Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Strout, Tania D.
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-02
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
234-240
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124799218
Cited by
121
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
Emergency Severity Index, geriatric emergency department, emergency department triage, hospitalization, emergency department length of stay, resource utilization (health care), survival, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Length of Stay, Maine, Male, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Triage, Geriatric Assessment, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Hospital Mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review