An examination of ESI triage scoring accuracy in relationship to ED nursing attitudes and experience.

INTRODUCTION: This research was designed to examine if there is a difference in nurse attitudes and experience for those who assign Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores accurately and those who do not assign ESI scores accurately. Studies that have used ESI scoring discussed the role of experience, but have not specifically addressed how the amount of experience and attitude towards patients in triage affect the triage nurse's decision-making capabilities. METHODS: A descriptive, exploratory study design was used. Data from 64 nurses and 1,644 triage events at 3 emergency departments was collected. Participants completed demographic data, attitude (Caring Nurse Patient Interaction, CNPI-23) survey, and triage data collection tools during the continuous 8-hour triage shift. Clinical nurse expert raters retrospectively reviewed the charts and assigned an ESI score to be compared with the nurse. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the nurse and Pearson's correlation was used to examine the relationship between experience and attitude. RESULTS: In this study of 64 nurse participants, the ESI score assigned by nurse participants did not differ significantly based on years of experience or CNPI mean score. The Kappa statistic ranged from a high of 0.63 in the nurse participant with 1.00 to 1.99 years of experience to a low of 0.51 in the nurse participant with 15 to 19 years of experience. The nurse participants with an overall mean CNPI-23 score of 106 to 115 achieved the highest agreement compared with a single participant with a CNPI-23 overall mean score of less than 77 who had a Kappa agreement of 0.50. The nurse participants with a CNPI-23 overall mean score between 81 and 92 demonstrated agreement of 0.54 to 0.60. DISCUSSION: Based on the high level of liability the triage area presents, special consideration needs to be made when deciding which nurse should be assigned to that area. The evidence produced from this study should provide some reassurance to ED managers and nurses alike that nurses with minimal ED experience and a working understanding of the ESI 5-level triage algorithm possess the knowledge and the capacity to safely and appropriately triage patients in the emergency department.

Establishing a comprehensive networkwide pressure ulcer identification process.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a critical concern, endangering patients and requiring significant resources for treatment in Stage II/IV. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) denies reimbursement in cases where a more complex diagnosis-related group (DRG) is assigned as a result of hospital-acquired conditions such as a PU that could have been reasonably prevented. IMPLEMENTATION: An interdisciplinary PU present-on-admission (POA) team developed an algorithm to support the early identification of PUs for units participating in the process. This approach standardized work, resulting in consistent (1) skin assessment, (2) physician notification, (3) reporting of findings in the patient safety reporting system, and (4) communication to receiving units. Computer-entry tools were developed and completed for six months by the patient care services unit-based process improvement councils; these councils made possible immediate "loop closure" for either positive feedback or needed reeducation with the nursing staff. RESULTS: The total number of PUs recognized and reported after implementation of the process improvement initiative--from April 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009--increased to 1,103--an increase of 36.3% in PU reporting when compared with the same period the year before. This initiative has yielded 100% effectiveness in identifying Stage III/IV PUs POA and in preventing hospital-acquired Stage III/IV PUs. The success of the project has helped to ensure high-quality patient care and protection of precious fiscal resources. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the identification of all PUs that are present at time of admission is clinically feasible.

Research on the frontlines of healthcare: a cooperative learning approach.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice is a common goal in hospitals, but learning about research so that the practice can be done is often challenging for clinicians. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (a) develop a process that supports organizational and staff development while conducting research and (b) conduct a research study in the emergency department (ED) to examine patient population, satisfaction, and waiting room issues. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of clinicians and scientists was assembled to learn and do research while evaluating the ED waiting room of a Level I trauma center. A cooperative learning method approach was used to teach research concepts as the study was designed and implemented. RESULTS: The team demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of research concepts by being involved actively in the creation and implementation of the preintervention study. Using information from photographs, observations, and a questionnaire, the team identified the following key dissatisfaction areas: (a) atmosphere (including comfort with environment, neatness and cleanliness, and noise), (b) telephones, (c) parking and thoroughfare, (d) professional behavior and staff presence (including personal attention), (e) security, and (f) triage and confidentiality. DISCUSSION: The model of working in partnership with researchers and using cooperative, collaborative research is an effective way to evaluate and address issues related to quality of care while learning about the research concepts needed to put evidence into practice.