OBJECTIVES: To examine the consistency of triage outcomes by nurses using four types of computerised\ud decision support software in NHS Direct.\ud \ud \ud METHODS: 119 scenarios were constructed based on calls to ambulance services that had been\ud assigned the lowest priority category by the emergency medical dispatch systems in use. These\ud scenarios were presented to nurses working in four NHS Direct call centres using different computerised\ud decision support software, including the NHS Clinical Assessment System.\ud \ud RESULTS: The overall level of agreement between the nurses using the four systems was “fair” rather than\ud “moderate” or “good” (k=0.375, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.41). For example, the proportion of calls triaged\ud to accident and emergency departments varied from 22% (26 of 119) to 44% (53 of 119). Between\ud 21% (25 of 119) and 31% (37 of 119) of these low priority ambulance calls were triaged back to the\ud 999 ambulance service. No system had both high sensitivity and specificity for referral to accident and\ud emergency services.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: There were large differences in outcome between nurses using different software systems\ud to triage the same calls. If the variation is primarily attributable to the software then standardising on a\ud single system will obviously eliminate this. As the calls were originally made to ambulance services and\ud given the lowest priority, this study also suggests that if, in the future, ambulance services pass such\ud calls to NHS Direct then at least a fifth of these may be passed back unless greater sensitivity in the\ud selection of calls can be achieved
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.