Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar-Apr;22(2):218-25.
doi: 10.1590/0104-1169.3172.2405.

Assessment and risk classification protocol for patients in emergency units

[Article in English, Portuguese, Spanish]
Michele de Freitas Neves Silva  1 , Gabriela Novelli Oliveira  2 , Aline Maino Pergola-Marconato  3 , Rafael Silva Marconato  3 , Eliete Boaventura Bargas  1 , Izilda Esmenia Muglia Araujo  3
Affiliations

Assessment and risk classification protocol for patients in emergency units

[Article in English, Portuguese, Spanish]
Michele de Freitas Neves Silva et al. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2014 Mar-Apr.

Erratum in

  • Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2014 May-Jun;22(3):521

Abstract

Objective: to develop, validate the contents and verify the reliability of a risk classification protocol for an Emergency Unit.

Method: the content validation was developed in a University Hospital in a country town located in the state of Sao Paulo and was carried out in two stages: the first with the individual assessment of specialists and the second with the meeting between the researchers and the specialists. The use of the protocol followed a specific guide. Concerning reliability, the concordance or equivalent method among observers was used.

Results: the protocol developed showed to have content validity and, after the suggested changes were made, there were excellent results concerning reliability.

Conclusion: the assistance flow chart was shown to be easy to use, and facilitate the search for the complaint in each assistance priority.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bullard MJ, Unger B, Spence J, Grafstein E, CTAS National Working Group Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity. CJEM. 2008;10(2):136–142. - PubMed
    1. O'Dwyer G, Matta IEA, Pepe VLE. Avaliação dos serviços hospitalares de emergência do estado do Rio de Janeiro. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2008;13(5):1637–1648. - PubMed
    1. Ministério da Saúde (BR) Documento base para gestores e trabalhadores do SUS . 2008. [acesso 17 fev 2013]. [Internet] Disponível em: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/humanizasus_gestores_trabalhad....
    1. Ministério da Saúde (BR) Boas práticas de humanização na atenção e na gestão do Sistema Único de Saúde: acolhimento e classificação de risco na emergência do Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição . 2006. [acesso 17 fev 2013]. [Internet] Disponível em: http://portal.saude.gov.br/portal/arquivos/pdf/GHC_02-10.pdf.
    1. Beveridge R, Clarke B, Janes L, Savage N, Thompson J, Dodd G, et al. Implementation Guidelines for The Canadian Emergency Department. Triage & Acuity Scale (CTAS). Endorsed by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP), the National Emergency Nurses Affiliation of Canada (NENA), and L'association des médecins d'urgence du Québec (AMUQ) Canadá: 1998.

Publication types