Evaluation of the Emergency Severity Index (Version 4) in Postpartum Women after Cesarean Delivery

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) version 4 is a 5-level triage system (1 being the highest acuity and 5 being the lowest acuity) used in the emergency department (ED). Our goal of the study was to compare rates of readmission according to ESI in postpartum women.

Study Design This was a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study of all women who presented to the ED within 6 weeks after cesarean delivery. The acuity level was assigned by triage nurses at the time of triage presentation. Our primary outcome was postpartum readmission. To examine if the addition of blood pressure to vital sign abnormalities would improve the prediction for readmission, we created a modified ESI. We identified women who had an ESI of level 3 and reassigned to a modified ESI of level 2 if blood pressure was in the severe range. Receiver operating characteristic curves with area under the curve (AUC) were created and compared between ESI and modified ESI.

Results Of 439 women, ESI distribution was 0.2% ESI 1, 23.7% ESI 2, 56.0% ESI 3, 19.4% ESI 4, and 0.7% ESI 5. Readmission rates by ESI level were 100% ESI 1, 47% ESI 2, 18% ESI 3, 2% ESI 4, and 0% ESI 5 (p < 0.001). Of 246 women who were assigned an ESI of 3, total 25 had severe range blood pressures and were reassigned to a modified ESI of 2. Of these 25 women, 14 were readmitted. The AUC of the modified ESI was statistically higher than that of the standard ESI (AUC: 0.77 and 95% confidence interval: 0.72–0.82 vs. AUC: 0.73 and 95% confidence interval: 0.68–0.78; p < 0.01).

Conclusion The ESI was a useful tool to identify women who required postpartum readmission. Incorporation of severe range blood pressure as a parameter of acuity improved the prediction of readmission.

Key Points

• ESI does not consider blood pressure.

• The ESI version 4 was predictive of postpartum readmission.

• Consideration of a severe range blood pressure significantly improved the prediction of readmission.

Publication History

Received: 25 April 2020

Accepted: 21 July 2020

Article published online:
30 August 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• References

• 1 Emergency Severity Index (ESI). A triage tool for emergency departments. Agency for healthcare research and quality; Rockville, MD: . Accessed December 26, 2019 at: https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/hospital/esi/index.html
  Google Scholar
• 2 Emergency Severity Index (ESI). A triage tool for emergency departments. Agency for healthcare research and quality; Rockville, MD: . Accessed December 26, 2019 at: https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/hospital/esi/esipref.html
  Google Scholar
• 3 Green NA, Durani Y, Brecher D, DePiero A, Loiselle J, Attia M. Emergency severity index version 4: a valid and reliable tool in pediatric emergency department triage. Pediatr Emerg Care 2012; 28 (08) 753-757
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Tanabe P, Gimbel R, Yarnold PR, Kyriacou DN, Adams JG. Reliability and validity of scores on The Emergency Severity Index version 3. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11 (01) 59-65
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Adler D, Abar B, Durham DD. et al. Validation of the emergency severity index (Version 4) for the triage of adult emergency department patients with active cancer. J Emerg Med 2019; 57 (03) 354-361
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA. et al. Emergency department use during the postpartum period: implications for current management of the puerperium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (01) 38.e1-38.e6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Harris A, Chang HY, Wang L. et al. Emergency room utilization after medically complicated pregnancies: a Medicaid claims analysis. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2015; 24 (09) 745-754
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Batra P, Fridman M, Leng M, Gregory KD. Emergency department care in the postpartum period: California Births, 2009-2011. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (05) 1073-1081
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Clapp MA, Little SE, Zheng J, Robinson JN. A multi-state analysis of postpartum readmissions in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215 (01) 113.e1-113.e10
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kawakita T, Iqbal SN, Landy HJ, Huang JC, Fries M. Reducing cesarean delivery surgical site infections: a resident-driven quality initiative. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (02) 282-288
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 202: gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (01) e1-e25
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Cleves MA. From the help desk: comparing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves from two or more probit or logit models. The Stata Journal 2002; 2 (03) 301-313 . Accessed May 13, 2020 at: https://www.stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=st0023
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Chapter 5. The role of vital signs in ESI triage. Content last reviewed October 2014. Agency for healthcare research and quality; Rockville, MD: . Accessed December 26, 2019 at: https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/hospital/esi/esi5.html
  Google Scholar
• 14 Sibai BM. Etiology and management of postpartum hypertension-preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (06) 470-475
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material