Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Triagesysteme in der Notaufnahme

Triage systems in the emergency department

  • CME Weiterbildung · Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Medizinische Klinik - Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Triagesysteme in der Notaufnahme ermöglichen die Kategorisierung der dort vorstellig werdenden Patienten anhand ihrer Erkrankungsschwere und legen Behandlungspriorität und -ort fest. International setzten sich 4 Triagesysteme durch, die jeweils 5 Kategorien definieren: Die australische Triageskala (ATS, Australien/Neuseeland) kategorisiert symptombasiert mittels spezifischer Deskriptoren. Das Manchester-Triage-System (MTS, Großbritannien) definiert Leitsymptome und triagiert anhand von Modifikatoren. Die kanadische „triage and acuity scale“ (CTAS, Kanada) basiert auf der ATS, enthält aber Diagnosen. Der „emergency severity index“ (ESI, USA) schließt primär akut lebensbedrohliche oder schwere Krankheitsbilder aus und kategorisiert dann nach zu erwartendem Ressourcenbedarf. Ziel aller Triagesysteme ist primär die Reduktion der Krankenhausmortalität. Zusätzlich sollen die Wartezeit bis zur Behandlung, die Krankenhausverweildauer und der Ressourcenverbrauch minimiert werden.

Abstract

Emergency department (ED) triage systems facilitate the categorization of emergency patients according to their disease severity and determine both treatment priority and treatment location. Four different five-level triage systems are internationally accepted. The Australasian Triage Scale (ATS, Australasia) allows categorization based on symptoms using specific descriptors. The Manchester Triage System (MTS, UK) uses defined presentational flow charts combined with indicators. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS, Canada) is based on the ATS, but also includes diagnoses. The Emergency Severity Index (ESI, USA) first excludes life-threatening and severe disease before stratification according to estimated resource utilization. The goal of all triage systems is to reduce the in-hospital mortality and to minimize time to treatment, length of stay, and resource utilization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. ACEM (2005) Guidelines on the implementation of the Austalasian triage scale in emergency departments. ACEM, Victoria, http://www.acem.org.au/media/policies_and_guidelines/G24_Implementation__ATS.pdf. Zugegriffen: Oktober 2011

  2. ACEP (American College of Emergency Physicians) (2002) Crowding resources task force: responding to emergency department crowding: guidebook for chapters. ACEP, Dallas, http://www.acep.org/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id ( 8872). Zugegriffen: Oktober 2011

  3. AHRQ (2005) ESI implementation handbook. AHRQ, Rockville, http://www.ahrq.gov/research/esi/. Zugegriffen: Oktober 2011

  4. Atack L, Rankin JA, Then KL (2005) Effectiveness of a 6-week online course in the Canadian triage and acuity scale for emergency nurses. J Emerg Nurs 31:436–441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Baumann MR, Strout TD (2005) Evaluation of the emergency severity index (version 3) triage algorithm in pediatric patients. Acad Emerg Med 12:219–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bullard MJ, Unger B, Spence J et al (2008) Revisions to the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale (CTAS) adult guidelines. CJEM 10:136–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. CAEP (Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians) (2011) CTAS: Canadian triage and acuity scale resources. CAEP, Ottawa; http://caep.ca/resources/ctas. Zugegriffen: Oktober 2011

  8. Christ M, Grossmann F, Winter D et al (2010) Triage in der Notaufnahme. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107:892–898

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Christensen D, Jensen NM, Maaloe R et al (2011) Low compliance with a validated system for emergency department triage. Dan Med Bull 58:A4294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Day A, Oldroyd C (2010) The use of early warning scores in the emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 36:154–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. DGINA (Deutsche Gesellschaft Interdisziplinäre Notfall- und Akutmedizin e.V.) (2011) Veranstaltungen. DGINA, Hamburg, http://www.dgina.de/pages/veranstaltungen/fortbildungen.php. Zugegriffen: Oktober 2011

  12. Dong SL, Bullard MJ, Meurer DP et al (2006) Reliability of computerized emergency triage. Acad Emerg Med 13:269–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Farrokhnia N, Castren M, Ehrenberg A et al (2011) Emergency department triage scales and their components: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 19:42–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer MK, Konitzer M (2010) Masse unklarer Beschwerdebilder. Dtsch Arztebl 107:794

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gerdtz MF, Collins M, Chu M et al (2008) Optimizing triage consistency in Australian emergency departments: the emergency triage education kit. Emerg Med Australas 20:250–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gerdtz MF, Chu M, Collins M et al (2009) Factors influencing consistency of triage using the Australasian triage scale: implications for guideline development. Emerg Med Australas 21:277–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilboy N, Tanabe P, Travers DA (2005) The emergency severity index version 4: changes to ESI level 1 and pediatric fever criteria. J Emerg Nurs 31:357–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Grossmann FF, Nickel CH, Christ M et al (2011) Transporting clinical tools to new settings: cultural adaptation and validation of the emergency severity index in German. Ann Emerg Med 57:257–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grossmann FF, Zumbrunn T, Frauchiger A et al (submitted) At risk for undertriage? Testing the performance of the emergency severity index in elderly ED patients. Ann Emerg Med

  20. Krey J (2011) Deutsches Netzwerk Ersteinschätzung, Bad Bramstedt, http://www.ersteinschaetzung.de/. Zugegriffen: Oktober 2011

  21. Mackway-Jones K, Marsden J, Windle J (2006) Ersteinschätzung in der Notaufnahme – Das Manchester-Triage-System. Huber, Bern Stuttgart Toronto

  22. Mcgillicuddy DC, O’connell FJ, Shapiro NI et al (2011) Emergency department abnormal vital sign „triggers“ program improves time to therapy. Acad Emerg Med 18:483–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Platts-Mills TF, Travers D, Biese K et al (2010) Accuracy of the emergency severity index triage instrument for identifying elder emergency department patients receiving an immediate life-saving intervention. Acad Emerg Med 17:238–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schellein O, Ludwig-Pistor F, Bremerich DH (2009) „Manchester Triage System“ – Prozessoptimierung in der interdisziplinären Notaufnahme. Anaesthesist 58:163–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Storm-Versloot MN, Ubbink DT, Chin a Choi V et al (2009) Observer agreement of the Manchester triage system and the emergency severity index: a simulation study. Emerg Med J 26:556–560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanabe P, Gimbel R, Yarnold PR et al (2004) Reliability and validity of scores on the emergency severity index version 3. Acad Emerg Med 11:59–65

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Travers DA, Waller AE, Bowling JM et al (2002) Five-level triage system more effective than three-level in tertiary emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 28:395–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Twomey M, Wallis LA, Myers JE (2007) Limitations in validating emergency department triage scales. Emerg Med J 24:477–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Veen M, Steyerberg EW, Ruige M et al (2008) Manchester triage system in paediatric emergency care: prospective observational study. BMJ 337:a1501–a1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wuerz RC, Milne LW, Eitel DR et al (2000) Reliability and validity of a new five-level triage instrument. Acad Emerg Med 7:236–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentralbereich Notaufnahme, Medizinische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Otfried-Müller-Straße 10, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland

    P. Weyrich & N. Celebi

  2. Klinik für Notfallmedizin und Internistische Intensivmedizin , Klinikum Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Deutschland

    M. Christ

  3. Zentralbereich Intensivmedizin, Medizinische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland

    R. Riessen

Authors
  1. P. Weyrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Christ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Celebi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Riessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Weyrich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weyrich, P., Christ, M., Celebi, N. et al. Triagesysteme in der Notaufnahme. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed 107, 67–79 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-011-0075-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-011-0075-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation