Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

PaACEP Response to Capital Health BC CHIP Program Process Improvement Initiative

By ACEP Now | on April 3, 2014 | 0 Comment
Features
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

2. During triage, does staff use criteria to determine severity levels? If so what criteria are used?

You Might Also Like
  • ACEP Initiative Supporting ‘Prudent Layperson’ Standard Becomes Law in Health Care Reform Act
  • New Study: EPs Key to Reducing Health Care Costs
  • Project ETHAN Telehealth Program Cuts Number of Emergency Department Transports in Houston

The Triage process is definitionally a tool to determine the order in which patients should be seen. Note that “the order in which patients should be seen” is the only legitimate function of Triage; it is never a question of “whether this patient should be seen’. Under EMTALA, all patients presenting to the ED must have a screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists.

Various classification systems are used to assess the level of severity of the presenting problem.

Severity of Medicaid cases in the ED
Nonelderly Medicaid patients are using emergency departments at higher rates than nonelderly privately insured patients, often for serious medical problems that require emergency care. Triage acuity was determined by staff on the patient’s arrival in the ED and is measured as the amount of time within which a patient needs medical attention. Numbers of visits in 2008 are reflected per 100 enrollees.

Triage acuity of visit Medicaid Private insurance
Emergent (0-14 minutes) 5.6 3.6
Urgent (15-60 minutes) 18.1 9.6
Semi-urgent (1-2 hours) 10.4 5.5
Nonurgent (2-24 hours) 4.5 1.6
No triage/unknown 7.2 3.7

Reference: “Dispelling Myths About Emergency Department Use: Majority of Medicaid Visits are for Urgent or More Serious Symptoms,” Center for Studying Health System Change, Research Brief, No.23, July 2012

The Center for Disease Control’s publication “National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: Fact Sheet, Emergency Department” includes data covering Triage status for all ED visits for 2009. The breakdown by category is as follows:

  • Immediate: 2 percent
  • Emergent: 10 percent
  • Urgent: 42 percent
  • Semiurgent: 35 percent
  • Nonurgent: 8 percent
  • No Triage: 3 percent

Thus, in this comprehensive survey, only 8 percent of all ED cases were characterized as “nonurgent” at the time of triage. The database was comprised of 21 percent of patients aged under 15 years old and another 16 percent aged 15 to 24 years. Medicaid or CHIP beneficiaries accounted for 29 percent of all patients in the survey. And while the report provides no definitions of the Triage categories, it is plain that the vast majority of ED presentations fell into a status that renders their categorization as potentially “unnecessary” as problematic at best, and at worst meaningless. Of further note is that the “Common reasons for visit” and “Common diagnoses” reported in the CDC database, while not limited to a pediatric population, show general concordance with those cited by Capital BC CHIP.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Single Page

Topics: Care Team

Related

  • EMS and the ED: What Should the Relationship Look Like Going Forward?

    November 23, 2021 - 0 Comment
  • Tips for Productive Hospital Policy Discussions

    August 31, 2021 - 0 Comment
  • Louisiana Physicians Get Important Scope-of-Practice Win

    July 27, 2021 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

About the Author

ACEP Now

View this author's posts »

No Responses to “PaACEP Response to Capital Health BC CHIP Program Process Improvement Initiative”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603