Consultation is a common and important aspect of emergency department (ED) care. We prospectively examined the consultation rates, the admission rates of consulted patients, the emergency physician (EP) disposition prediction of consulted patients and the difficult consultations rates in 2 tertiary care hospitals.

Attending EPs recorded consultations during 5 randomly selected shifts over an 8-week period using standardized forms. Subsequent computer outcome data were extracted for each patient encounter, as well as demographic data from the ED during days in which there was a study shift.

During 105 clinical shifts, 1930 patients were managed by 21 EPs (median 17 patients per shift; interquartile range 14–23). Overall, at least 1 consultation was requested in 38% of patients. More than one-half of the patients (54.3%) who received a consultation were admitted to the hospital. Consultation proportions were similar between males and females (51% v. 49%, p = 0.03). Consultations occurred more frequently for patients who were older, had higher acuity presentations, arrived during daytime hours or arrived by ambulance. The proportion of agreement between the EP's and consultant's opinion on the need for admission was 89% (κ = 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.72–0.83). Overall, 92% of patents received 1 consultation. Six percent of the consultations were perceived as “difficult” by the EPs (defined as the EP's subjective impression of difficulties with consultation times, accessibility and availability of consultants, and the interaction with consultants or disposition issues).

Consultation is a common process in the ED. It often results in admission and is predictable based on simple patient factors. Because of perceived difficulty with consultations, strategies to improve the EP consultation process in the ED seem warranted.

Emergency department (ED) triage prioritizes patients based on urgency of care, and the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is the national standard. We describe the inter-rater agreement and manual overrides of nurses using a CTAS-compliant web-based triage tool (eTRIAGE) for 2 different intensities of staff training.

This prospective study was conducted in an urban tertiary care ED. In phase 1, eTRIAGE was deployed after a 3-hour training course for 24 triage nurses who were asked to share this knowledge during regular triage shifts with colleagues who had not received training (n = 77). In phase 2, a targeted group of 8 triage nurses underwent further training with eTRIAGE. In each phase, patients were assessed first by the duty triage nurse and then by a blinded independent study nurse, both using eTRIAGE. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using kappa (weighted κ) statistics.

In phase 1, 569 patients were enrolled with 513 (90.2%) complete records; 577 patients were enrolled in phase 2 with 555 (96.2%) complete records. Inter-rater agreement during phase 1 was moderate (weighted κ = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.62); agreement improved in phase 2 (weighted κ = 0.65; 95% CI 0.60–0.70). Manual overrides of eTRIAGE scores were infrequent (approximately 10%) during both periods.

Agreement between study nurses and duty triage nurses, both using eTRIAGE, was moderate to good, with a trend toward improvement with additional training. Triage overrides were infrequent. Continued attempts to refine the triage process and training appear warranted.