Caracterização dos atendimentos de um pronto-socorro público segundo o Sistema de Triagem de Manchester

Objective: to characterize the care of patients classified by the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in a large public hospital. Methodology: it is a descriptive study with a quantitative approach that analyzed 52,657 patients with a risk classification made on admission to the Emergency Room in the yea...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Authors: Alessandra Dias Costa Silva, Tânia Couto Machado Chianca, Danielle Resende Pádua, Gilberto de Lima Guimarães, Bruna Figueiredo Manzo, Allana Dos Reis Correa
Format: article
Status:Published version
Publication Date:2019
Country:Brasil
Institution:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
Repository:Repositório Institucional da UFMG
Language:Portuguese
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/53675
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/1843/53675
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4313-8638
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8313-2791
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9263-3934
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6027-372X
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0064-9961
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2208-958X
Access Level:Open access
Keyword:Serviço hospitalar de emergência
Serviços médicos de emergência
Triagem
Admissão do paciente
Enfermagem em emergência
Qualidade da assistência à saúde
Description
Summary:Objective: to characterize the care of patients classified by the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in a large public hospital. Methodology: it is a descriptive study with a quantitative approach that analyzed 52,657 patients with a risk classification made on admission to the Emergency Room in the year 2015. The data were collected in electronic records and subjected to descriptive analysis by the program Statistical Package for Social Sciences 19.0 version. Results and discussion: predominant male population (54.2%), average age of 33 years (IQ: 19-51). The most frequent age groups were young adults between 19 and 29 years old (20.7%) and elderly (16.4%). The most frequent clinical priority levels were urgent/yellow (45.6%) and less urgent/green (33.4%) and the most visited flowcharts were extremity problems (31.4%) and "adult malaise" (10.1%). The time between recording and classification had an average of 6.2 minutes (IQ: 2.8-13). As for the time between the risk classification and the primary care, the average in minutes was 20.1 (IQ: 9.3-33.7) for emergency/red, 18.5 (IQ: 10.9-33.2) for very urgent/orange, 58.2 (IQ: 30.2-111.2) for urgent/yellow, 92.7 (46.9-177.3) for less urgent/green and 103.4 (IQ: 41.5-209.6) for non-urgent/blue. Prevailed as the outcome hospital discharge after consultation/medication (61.3%). Conclusion: the reassessment of the flows and processes related to risk classification and initial care is intended to improve the accuracy of the records and the time of primary care, which may contribute to a more qualified and resolutive assistance.