The use of and satisfaction with the Emergency Severity Index.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) is a 5-level emergency department triage algorithm designed to facilitate the sorting and streaming of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of the ESI in emergency departments, including satisfaction with the ESI, usefulness of the ESI compared with other triage algorithms, and lessons learned from implementation. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was sent to 935 people who requested the ESI training materials from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and who volunteered to participate in a study about the ESI. The response rate for the survey was 42% (n = 392). Telephone interviews were conducted with an additional 19 ED professionals. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used in the data analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-two survey respondents (82%) reported that they use the ESI in their emergency department. Satisfaction with the ESI triage algorithm is high. ESI users indicated that the ESI is more accurate than other triage algorithms and that its strengths are simplicity of use and the ability to reduce the subjectivity of triage. DISCUSSION: The majority of ED professionals who reported using the ESI were very satisfied with the tool. Users found that it was more accurate than other triage algorithms and reduced the subjectivity of the triage process. Both survey and interview findings indicated that few emergency departments have formally assessed the impact of the ESI on ED operations.

A national survey of primary care practice-based research networks.

PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are being developed in the United States to perform research relevant to everyday practice. To assess the current status and potential value of this resource, we surveyed US primary care PBRNs in operation from late 2003 to early 2004. METHODS: We performed a Web-based survey and structured interviews with PBRN directors and administrative officers, assessing PBRNs' history, size, location, organization, resources, operations, and productivity (funding obtained, studies performed, and articles published). RESULTS: Of 111 primary care PBRNs identified, 89 (80%) responded to the survey. The 86 (77%) meeting the criteria for primary care PBRNs contained 1,871 practices, 12,957 physicians (mean 152 per PBRN, median 100), and 14.7 million patients (mean 229,880 per PBRN, median 105,000). Minority and underinsured patients were overrepresented. The average PBRN was young (4.4 +/- 5.7 years): one-half had performed 3 or fewer studies. Three-quarters were affiliated with universities. Common research foci included prevention, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, and mental health. Respondent PBRNs had published more than 600 articles in peer-reviewed journals. PBRNs studying questions posed by outside researchers had more federal funding (84% vs 27%, P=.006). PBRNs citing funding as a weakness relied more on local resources to fund research projects (70% vs 40%, P=.036). CONCLUSIONS: American primary care PBRNs are mainly young, diverse, and pursuing a variety of research foci. Most have university links and provide a dynamic town-gown relationship that could be a vital national resource for improving primary care, translating research into practice, and meeting the National Institutes of Health Roadmap goals. PBRNs merit further attention from both private and public funding agencies and researchers interested in studying the delivery of primary care.