EmergenciesNCT00321243
Evaluation of Emergency Triage Using a Computerized Simulator
A study testing Visual clues in people with Emergencies, run by University Hospital, Geneva at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
A four-level triage scale (the Geneva Emergency Triage Scale, GETS) has been used since 1997 in our emergency department (ED). A recent evaluation of this scale showed that our instrument had an excellent intra-rater reliability but insufficient inter-rater reliability. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Emergencies
- What is being tested?
- Visual clues
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 150 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- May 2006to May 2007
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Triage nurses
- Emergency physicians
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Switzerland1 site
Geneva University Hospitals
Geneva, Canton of Geneva, 1211
About this study
Official title: Evaluation of a Four-Level Triage Scale (the Geneva Emergency Triage Scale) Using a Computer Triage Simulator
A four-level triage scale (the Geneva Emergency Triage Scale, GETS) has been used since 1997 in our emergency department (ED). A recent evaluation of this scale showed that our instrument had an excellent intra-rater reliability but insufficient inter-rater reliability. We also observed a wide variability in the way triage nurses perform (J Clin Epidemiology, 2006 in press). These variations in the triage process are mainly explained by a poor standardization of vital signs measurement. Therefore, we have recently modified our triage instrument and introduced explicit criteria for vital signs evaluation during the triage process.
The objectives of this study are:
Read more
- To evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of our modified triage scale using a computer simulator
- To measure the impact of visual clues on the triage decisions when using the triage simulator
- To evaluate the performance of triage nurses and chief physicians in their triage decisions.
We expect to observe:
- an improvement of the inter-rater reliability of our instrument compared to the previous version
- a better standardization and more systematic use of vital signs measurement
- a higher reliability when visual clues are given to the evaluator
- lower rates of under- and over-estimation of emergency levels.
Read the detailed description
A four-level triage scale (the Geneva Emergency Triage Scale, GETS) has been used since 1997 in our emergency department (ED). A recent evaluation of this scale showed that our instrument had an excellent intra-rater reliability but insufficient inter-rater reliability. We also observed a wide variability in the way triage nurses perform (J Clin Epidemiology, 2006 in press). These variations in the triage process are mainly explained by a poor standardization of vital signs measurement. Therefore, we have recently modified our triage instrument and introduced explicit criteria for vital signs evaluation during the triage process.
The objectives of this study are:
- To evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of our modified triage scale using a computer simulator
- To measure the impact of visual clues on the triage decisions when using the triage simulator
- To evaluate the performance of triage nurses and chief physicians in their triage decisions.
We expect to observe:
- an improvement of the inter-rater reliability of our instrument compared to the previous version
- a better standardization and more systematic use of vital signs measurement
- a higher reliability when visual clues are given to the evaluator
- lower rates of under- and over-estimation of emergency levels.
- Conditions
- Emergencies
- Being tested
- Visual clues
- Keywords
- triage
- Medical subject headings
- Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Visual cluesBehavioural
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability
Performance of evaluators
Secondary outcomes (1)
Impact of visual clues on reliability
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 May 2006 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2006
- Primary completionMay 2007
- Study completionMay 2007
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for EmergenciesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Hospital, GenevaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 150 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Geneva
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Olivier T Rutschmann, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, University Hospital, Geneva
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00321243
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CER 05-213
- Status last verified
- Jun 2008
- First submitted
- 6 Feb 2006
- Last updated
- 4 Jun 2008
- Results posted
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Jun 2008. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of a Four-Level Triage Scale (the Geneva Emergency Triage Scale) Using a Computer Triage Simulator
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00321243
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CER 05-213
- Conditions
- Emergencies
- Keywords
- triage
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 150 participants
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, GenevaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2006
- Primary completion
- May 2007 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2007 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 May 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
A four-level triage scale (the Geneva Emergency Triage Scale, GETS) has been used since 1997 in our emergency department (ED). A recent evaluation of this scale showed that our instrument had an excellent intra-rater reliability but insufficient inter-rater reliability. We also observed a wide variability in the way triage nurses perform (J Clin Epidemiology, 2006 in press). These variations in the triage process are mainly explained by a poor standardization of vital signs measurement. Therefore, we have recently modified our triage instrument and introduced explicit criteria for vital signs evaluation during the triage process.
The objectives of this study are:
- To evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of our modified triage scale using a computer simulator
- To measure the impact of visual clues on the triage decisions when using the triage simulator
- To evaluate the performance of triage nurses and chief physicians in their triage decisions.
We expect to observe:
- an improvement of the inter-rater reliability of our instrument compared to the previous version
- a better standardization and more systematic use of vital signs measurement
- a higher reliability when visual clues are given to the evaluator
- lower rates of under- and over-estimation of emergency levels.
Detailed description
A four-level triage scale (the Geneva Emergency Triage Scale, GETS) has been used since 1997 in our emergency department (ED). A recent evaluation of this scale showed that our instrument had an excellent intra-rater reliability but insufficient inter-rater reliability. We also observed a wide variability in the way triage nurses perform (J Clin Epidemiology, 2006 in press). These variations in the triage process are mainly explained by a poor standardization of vital signs measurement. Therefore, we have recently modified our triage instrument and introduced explicit criteria for vital signs evaluation during the triage process.
The objectives of this study are:
- To evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of our modified triage scale using a computer simulator
- To measure the impact of visual clues on the triage decisions when using the triage simulator
- To evaluate the performance of triage nurses and chief physicians in their triage decisions.
We expect to observe:
- an improvement of the inter-rater reliability of our instrument compared to the previous version
- a better standardization and more systematic use of vital signs measurement
- a higher reliability when visual clues are given to the evaluator
- lower rates of under- and over-estimation of emergency levels.
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Triage nurses
- Emergency physicians
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Visual clues | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability
Performance of evaluators
1 secondary outcome
Impact of visual clues on reliability
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Jun 2008.
Related trials for Emergencies
Not yet recruiting
Development, Validation, and Clinical Trial of a Prediction Tool for High-Risk Emergency Department Revisits
Emergency Department, Revisit
Not yet recruiting
Execution of Prehospital Transesophageal Echocardiography During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Patients With Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA)
Recruiting
Effectiveness of the RAUC Pathway in Reducing Unscheduled Hospitalizations After Emergency Digestive Surgery
Digestive Emergency, New Pathway
Not yet recruiting
Miniature In-line Respirator
Brain Death, Respiration, Artificial
Not yet recruiting
Bassini Repair Versus Desarda Technique in Urgent Complicated Inguinal Hernia Repair
Inguinal Hernia, Incarcerated Inguinal Hernia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Olivier T Rutschmann, MD, MPH principal investigator
University Hospital, Geneva
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Visual clues in people with Emergencies, run by University Hospital, Geneva at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Jun 2008. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Jun 2008.