JMIR mHealth and uHealth (Mar 2022)

Safety of Triage Self-assessment Using a Symptom Assessment App for Walk-in Patients in the Emergency Care Setting: Observational Prospective Cross-sectional Study

  • Fabienne Cotte,
  • Tobias Mueller,
  • Stephen Gilbert,
  • Bibiana Blümke,
  • Jan Multmeier,
  • Martin Christian Hirsch,
  • Paul Wicks,
  • Joseph Wolanski,
  • Darja Tutschkow,
  • Carmen Schade Brittinger,
  • Lars Timmermann,
  • Andreas Jerrentrup

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/32340
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 3
p. e32340

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundIncreasing use of emergency departments (EDs) by patients with low urgency, combined with limited availability of medical staff, results in extended waiting times and delayed care. Technological approaches could possibly increase efficiency by providing urgency advice and symptom assessments. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of urgency advice provided by a symptom assessment app, Ada, in an ED. MethodsThe study was conducted at the interdisciplinary ED of Marburg University Hospital, with data collection performed between August 2019 and March 2020. This study had a single-center cross-sectional prospective observational design and included 378 patients. The app’s urgency recommendation was compared with an established triage concept (Manchester Triage System [MTS]), including patients from the lower 3 MTS categories only. For all patients who were undertriaged, an expert physician panel assessed the case to detect potential avoidable hazardous situations (AHSs). ResultsOf 378 participants, 344 (91%) were triaged the same or more conservatively and 34 (8.9%) were undertriaged by the app. Of the 378 patients, 14 (3.7%) had received safe advice determined by the expert panel and 20 (5.3%) were considered to be potential AHS. Therefore, the assessment could be considered safe in 94.7% (358/378) of the patients when compared with the MTS assessment. From the 3 lowest MTS categories, 43.4% (164/378) of patients were not considered as emergency cases by the app, but could have been safely treated by a general practitioner or would not have required a physician consultation at all. ConclusionsThe app provided urgency advice after patient self-triage that has a high rate of safety, a rate of undertriage, and a rate of triage with potential to be an AHS, equivalent to telephone triage by health care professionals while still being more conservative than direct ED triage. A large proportion of patients in the ED were not considered as emergency cases, which could possibly relieve ED burden if used at home. Further research should be conducted in the at-home setting to evaluate this hypothesis. Trial RegistrationGerman Clinical Trial Registration DRKS00024909; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00024909