Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Révision de la liste de raisons de consultation du Système canadien d’information de gestion des départements d’urgence (SIGDU), version 1.1

  • Eric Grafstein (a1), Michael J. Bullard (a2), David Warren (a3), Bernard Unger (a4) and le groupe de travail national sur l’ÉTG (a5)...
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Révision de la liste de raisons de consultation du Système canadien d’information de gestion des départements d’urgence (SIGDU), version 1.1
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Révision de la liste de raisons de consultation du Système canadien d’information de gestion des départements d’urgence (SIGDU), version 1.1
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Révision de la liste de raisons de consultation du Système canadien d’information de gestion des départements d’urgence (SIGDU), version 1.1
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

Copyright

Corresponding author

de médecine d'urgence, Université de la Colombie-Britannique, département de médecine d’urgence, hôpital St. Paul's, 1081, rue Burrard, Vancouver BC V6Z 1Y6; egrafstein@providencehealth.bc.ca

References

Hide All
1.Grafstein, E, Unger, B, Bullard, M, et al. Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDrosoph Inf Serv) Presenting Complaint List (Version 1.0). CJEM 2003;5:2734.
2.Beitel, AJ, Olson, KL, Reis, BY, et al. Use of emergency department chief complaint and diagnostic codes for identifying respiratory illness in a paediatric population. Pediatr Emerg Care 2004;20:355–60.
3.Terry, W, Ostrowsky, B, Huang, A. Should we be worried? Investigation for signals generated by an electronic syndromic surveillance system — Westchester County, New York. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004;53(Supp):190–5.
4.Mikosz, CA, Silva, J, Black, S, et al. Comparison of two major emergency department-based free-text chief complaint coding systems. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004;53(Suppl):101–5.
5.Irvin, CB, Nouhan, PP, Rice, K. Syndromic analysis of computerized emergency department patients’ chief complaints: an opportunity for bioterrorism and influenza surveillance. Ann Emerg Med 2003;41:447–52.
6.Murray, M, Bullard, M, Grafstein, E. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale implementation guidelines. CJEM 2004;6:421–7.
7.Gouin, S, Gravel, J, Amre, DK, et al. Evaluation of the Paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in a pediatric ED. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23:243–7.
8.Gravel, J, Gouin, S, Bailey, B, et al. Evaluation of the validity of a computerized version of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in a paediatric emergency department [résumé]. CJEM 2007;9:183.
9.Grafstein, E, Innes, G, Westman, J, et al. Inter-rater reliability of a computerized presenting-complaint-linked triage system in an urban emergency department. CJEM 2003;5:323–9.
10.Aronsky, D, Kendall, D, Merkley, K, et al. A comprehensive set of coded chief complaints for the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:980–9.
11.Gorelick, MH, Alpern, ER, Alessandrini, EA. A system for grouping presenting complaints: the paediatric emergency reason for visit cluster. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:723–31.
12.Chapman, WW, Dowling, JN, Wagner, MM. Classification of emergency department chief complaints into 7 syndromes: a retrospective analysis of 527,228 patients. Ann Emerg Med 2005;46:445–55.
13.Travers, DA, Haas, SW. Evaluation of emergency medical text processor, a system for cleaning chief complaint text data. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11:1170–6.
14.Thompson, DA, Eitel, D, Fernandes, CMB, et al. Coded chief complaints — automated analysis of free-text complaints. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:774–82.
15.Institut canadien d’information sur la santé. Système national d’information sur les soins ambulatoires (SNISA). Disponible sur : http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=services_nacrs_f (Consulté le 20 janvier 2008).
16.Bullard, MJ, Unger, B, Spence, J, et al. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) adult guidlines. CJEM 2008;10:136–42.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed