The Path Toward Fellow Designation in the Academy of Emergency Nursing: Understanding and Navigating the Process to Ensure Your Success.

The Academy of Emergency Nursing was established to honor emergency nurses who have made enduring and substantial contributions that have had significant impact and continue to advance the emergency nursing specialty. Nurses who have been recognized as having made enduring and substantial contributions to emergency nursing achieve fellow status in the Academy of Emergency Nursing and are conferred the credential, Fellow of the Academy of Emergency Nursing. Academy of Emergency Nursing Board Members want to dismantle any structural barriers, clarify any misunderstandings or mysteries, and support diverse candidates by providing clear and equitable resources about the path toward fellow designation and the application process. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to support interested persons in their path toward Academy of Emergency Nursing fellow designation and give explicit details of each section of the application to develop a shared understanding among potential applicants, sponsors, and Fellows of the Academy of Emergency Nursing.

Improving ED Emergency Severity Index Acuity Assignment Using Machine Learning and Clinical Natural Language Processing.

INTRODUCTION: Triage is critical to mitigating the effect of increased volume by determining patient acuity, need for resources, and establishing acuity-based patient prioritization. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine whether historical EHR data can be used with clinical natural language processing and machine learning algorithms (KATE) to produce accurate ESI predictive models. METHODS: The KATE triage model was developed using 166,175 patient encounters from two participating hospitals. The model was tested against a random sample of encounters that were correctly assigned an acuity by study clinicians using the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) standard as a guide. RESULTS: At the study sites, KATE predicted accurate ESI acuity assignments 75.7% of the time compared with nurses (59.8%) and the average of individual study clinicians (75.3%). KATE's accuracy was 26.9% higher than the average nurse accuracy (P <.001). On the boundary between ESI 2 and ESI 3 acuity assignments, which relates to the risk of decompensation, KATE's accuracy was 93.2% higher, with 80% accuracy compared with triage nurses 41.4% accuracy (P <.001). DISCUSSION: KATE provides a triage acuity assignment more accurate than the triage nurses in this study sample. KATE operates independently of contextual factors, unaffected by the external pressures that can cause under triage and may mitigate biases that can negatively affect triage accuracy. Future research should focus on the impact of KATE providing feedback to triage nurses in real time, on mortality and morbidity, ED throughput, resource optimization, and nursing outcomes.

Correction: Correction to 'Clinical Policy for Well-Appearing Infants and Children Younger Than 2 Years of Age Presenting to the Emergency Department With Fever' [Annals of Emergency Medicine 67 (2016) 625-639.e13].

Due to a miscommunication during the process of transferring this manuscript from our editorial team to Production, the Members of the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee (Oversight Committee) were not properly indexed in PubMed. This has now been corrected online. The publisher would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Emergency Severity Index version 4: a valid and reliable tool in pediatric emergency department triage.

OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Severity Index version 4 (ESI v.4) is the most recently implemented 5-level triage system. The validity and reliability of this triage tool in the pediatric population have not been extensively established. The goals of this study were to assess the validity of ESI v.4 in predicting hospital admission, emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS), and number of resources utilized, as well as its reliability in a prospective cohort of pediatric patients. METHODS: The first arm of the study was a retrospective chart review of 780 pediatric patients presenting to a pediatric ED to determine the validity of ESI v.4. Abstracted data included acuity level assigned by the triage nurse using ESI v.4 algorithm, disposition (admission vs discharge), LOS, and number of resources utilized in the ED. To analyze the validity of ESI v.4, patients were divided into 2 groups for comparison: higher-acuity patients (ESI levels 1, 2, and 3) and lower-acuity patients (ESI levels 4 and 5). Pearson χ analysis was performed for categorical variables. For continuous variables, we conducted a comparison of means based on parametric distribution of variables. The second arm was a prospective cohort study to determine the interrater reliability of ESI v.4 among and between pediatric triage (PT) nurses and pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians. Three raters (2 PT nurses and 1 PEM physician) independently assigned triage scores to 100 patients; k and interclass correlation coefficient were calculated among PT nurses and between the primary PT nurses and physicians. RESULTS: In the validity arm, the distribution of ESI score levels among the 780 cases are as follows: ESI 1: 2 (0.25%); ESI 2: 73 (9.4%); ESI 3: 289 (37%); ESI 4: 251 (32%); and ESI 5: 165 (21%). Hospital admission rates by ESI level were 1: 100%, 2: 42%, 3: 14.9%, 4: 1.2%, and 5: 0.6%. The admission rate of the higher-acuity group (76/364, 21%) was significantly greater than the lower-acuity group (4/415, 0.96%), P < 0.001. The mean ED LOS (in minutes) for the higher-acuity group was 257 (SD, 132) versus 143 (SD, 81) in the lower-acuity group, P < 0.001. The higher-acuity group also had significantly greater use of resources than the lower-acuity group, P < 0.001. The percentage of low-acuity patients receiving no resources was 54%, compared with only 26% in the higher-acuity group. Conversely, a greater percentage of higher-acuity patients utilized 2 or more resources than the lower-acuity cohorts, 43% vs 12%, respectively, P < 0.001. In the prospective reliability arm of the study, 15 PT nurses and 8 PEM attending physicians participated in the study; k among nurses was 0.92 and between the primary triage nurses and physicians was 0.78, P < 0.001. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.96 for PT nurses and 0.91 between the primary triage nurse and physicians, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency Severity Index v.4 is a valid predictor of hospital admission, ED LOS, and resource utilization in the pediatric ED population. It is a reliable pediatric triage instrument with high agreement among PT nurses and between PT nurses and PEM physicians.

The Emergency Severity Index Version 4: reliability in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Severity Index version 4 (ESI v.4) is a triage system, which demonstrates reliability in adult populations, however, it has not been extensively studied in pediatrics. The goal of this study was to measure interrater reliability and agreement rates within and between a group of pediatric emergency medicine physicians and pediatric triage (PT) nurses using ESI v.4 in a pediatric population. METHODS: Pediatric emergency medicine physicians and PT nurses completed ESI v.4 training and a survey of 20 pediatric case scenarios, requiring them to assign a triage category to each case. Cases and standardized responses were adapted from the ESI v.4 training materials. Unweighted and weighted J was measured, and agreement rates for each group were compared with the standard response. RESULTS: Sixteen physicians and 17 nurses completed the study. The group had a mean of 10.2 (T7.7) years experience in pediatrics. Nurses had a mean of 7.6 (T8.7) years experience in triage. Unweighted J for physicians and nurses was 0.68 and 0.67, respectively. Weighted J for physicians and nurses was 0.92 and 0.93, respectively. The agreement rate among physicians and nurses with the standardized responses to case scenarios was 83%. CONCLUSIONS: ESI v.4 is a reliable tool for triage assessments in pediatric patients when used by experienced pediatric emergency medicine physicians and PT nurses. It is a triage system with high agreement between physicians and nurses.

The Emergency Severity Index Version 4: reliability in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Severity Index version 4 (ESI v.4) is a triage system, which demonstrates reliability in adult populations, however, it has not been extensively studied in pediatrics. The goal of this study was to measure interrater reliability and agreement rates within and between a group of pediatric emergency medicine physicians and pediatric triage (PT) nurses using ESI v.4 in a pediatric population. METHODS: Pediatric emergency medicine physicians and PT nurses completed ESI v.4 training and a survey of 20 pediatric case scenarios, requiring them to assign a triage category to each case. Cases and standardized responses were adapted from the ESI v.4 training materials. Unweighted and weighted kappa was measured, and agreement rates for each group were compared with the standard response. RESULTS: Sixteen physicians and 17 nurses completed the study. The group had a mean of 10.2 (+/-7.7) years experience in pediatrics. Nurses had a mean of 7.6 (+/-8.7) years experience in triage. Unweighted kappa for physicians and nurses was 0.68 and 0.67, respectively. Weighted kappa for physicians and nurses was 0.92 and 0.93, respectively. The agreement rate among physicians and nurses with the standardized responses to case scenarios was 83%. CONCLUSIONS: ESI v.4 is a reliable tool for triage assessments in pediatric patients when used by experienced pediatric emergency medicine physicians and PT nurses. It is a triage system with high agreement between physicians and nurses.