Skip to main content

Table 6 Assessed triage decision and relative risk (RR) of optimal triage, undertriage and overtriage for triage professionals

From: Safety, efficiency and health-related quality of telephone triage conducted by general practitioners, nurses, or physicians in out-of-hours primary care: a quasi-experimental study using the Assessment of Quality in Telephone Triage (AQTT) to assess audio-recorded telephone calls

  1. 1Rating scale assessing appropriateness of triage decision with definitions of each rating: 1. Severe undertriage: The call is undertriaged with risk of severe consequences; 2. Moderate undertriage: The call is undertriaged, but unlikely with risk of severe consequences; 3. Mild undertriage: The call is undertriaged, but could have been triaged “somewhat higher”; 4. Optimal triage: The call is optimal triaged; 5. Mild overtriage: The call is overtriaged, but could have been triaged “somewhat lower”; 6. Moderate overtriage: The call is overtriaged, it would have been sufficient with a “less burdensome service”; 7. Severe overtriage: The call is overtriaged; it seems completely irrelevant to choose this triage outcome
  2. 2Clinically relevant undertriage is the sum of ratings “1” and “2”; 3Clinically relevant overtriage is the sum of “6” and “7”; The RR for “clinically relevant undertriage” and clinically relevant overtriage was analysed using binomial regression model. *Significant differences: p < 0.05
  3. £ RR of poor quality adjusted for evaluator background (GPC, MH-1813) (i.e. if call is assessed by an assessor with the same professional background and organisation (similar-to-me)) and the uneven constitution of assessors (ratio assessors from GPC:MH-1813 – 16:8)
\