The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Safety and accuracy of digitally supported primary and secondary urgent care telephone triage in England: an observational study using routine data

Safety and accuracy of digitally supported primary and secondary urgent care telephone triage in England: an observational study using routine data
Safety and accuracy of digitally supported primary and secondary urgent care telephone triage in England: an observational study using routine data

Background: England’s urgent care telephone triage system comprises non-clinician-led primary triage (NHS111) assessment followed, for approximately 50% patients, by clinician-led secondary triage. Digital decision support is utilised by both. We explore the system’s safety and accuracy relative to patients’ use of emergency departments (EDs) and in-patient care in the subsequent 24 h. 

Methods: descriptive analyses were used to investigate outcomes of 98,946 calls that underwent primary and secondary triage. We investigated sensitivity (safety) and specificity (efficiency/accuracy) in relation to subsequent ED attendance and in-patient hospital admission. Mixed effects regression models were used to explore potential under-estimation of clinical risk (under-triage). 

Results: sensitivity was greater in primary triage, whilst specificity was greater in secondary triage. The positive predictive value for attending ED after being assigned a triage urgency level of within 2 h was 46.0% for secondary triage compared to 20.7% for primary triage; for inpatient admission it was 18.0% and 9.2% respectively. 1.5% (n = 1468) patients triaged to same-day or less urgent care at secondary triage were subsequently admitted for in-patient care. In relation to in-patient admission within 24 h, there were greater odds of potential under-triage for calls made between midnight and 6am, and for shorter duration calls, respectively OR = 1.71; CI:1.32–2.21 and OR: 1.66, CI: 1.30–2.11. The service provider (e.g., service provider 2, OR = 5.61; CI:3.36–9.36) and individual clinician (OR covering the 95% midrange = 16.15) conducting triage were the characteristics most greatly associated with this potential under-triage; p < 0.001 for all. 

Conclusions: clinician-led urgent care triage is more accurate in identifying the likelihood of a need for ED or in-patient care than non-clinician triage. Non-clinician primary triage is risk averse, reflected in its high sensitivity but low specificity. Service and clinician characteristics associated with potential under-triage need further investigation to inform ways of improving the safety and effectiveness of urgent care telephone triage. Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

Digital triage, Emergencies, NHS 111, Primary health care, Urgent care
1472-6947
Sexton, Vanashree
eacf0d1e-66e8-45e3-82bb-c8d79b3a0d11
Grimley, Catherine
813531d5-e9be-4fb8-a94d-e4bd8f256dbd
Dale, Jeremy
19fccbd2-1661-4d84-8a94-36bedb12a0e2
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Abel, Gary
d14838f4-2a59-4dec-b3ac-527030888e44
Sexton, Vanashree
eacf0d1e-66e8-45e3-82bb-c8d79b3a0d11
Grimley, Catherine
813531d5-e9be-4fb8-a94d-e4bd8f256dbd
Dale, Jeremy
19fccbd2-1661-4d84-8a94-36bedb12a0e2
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Abel, Gary
d14838f4-2a59-4dec-b3ac-527030888e44

Sexton, Vanashree, Grimley, Catherine, Dale, Jeremy, Atherton, Helen and Abel, Gary (2025) Safety and accuracy of digitally supported primary and secondary urgent care telephone triage in England: an observational study using routine data. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 25 (1), [52]. (doi:10.1186/s12911-025-02888-x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: England’s urgent care telephone triage system comprises non-clinician-led primary triage (NHS111) assessment followed, for approximately 50% patients, by clinician-led secondary triage. Digital decision support is utilised by both. We explore the system’s safety and accuracy relative to patients’ use of emergency departments (EDs) and in-patient care in the subsequent 24 h. 

Methods: descriptive analyses were used to investigate outcomes of 98,946 calls that underwent primary and secondary triage. We investigated sensitivity (safety) and specificity (efficiency/accuracy) in relation to subsequent ED attendance and in-patient hospital admission. Mixed effects regression models were used to explore potential under-estimation of clinical risk (under-triage). 

Results: sensitivity was greater in primary triage, whilst specificity was greater in secondary triage. The positive predictive value for attending ED after being assigned a triage urgency level of within 2 h was 46.0% for secondary triage compared to 20.7% for primary triage; for inpatient admission it was 18.0% and 9.2% respectively. 1.5% (n = 1468) patients triaged to same-day or less urgent care at secondary triage were subsequently admitted for in-patient care. In relation to in-patient admission within 24 h, there were greater odds of potential under-triage for calls made between midnight and 6am, and for shorter duration calls, respectively OR = 1.71; CI:1.32–2.21 and OR: 1.66, CI: 1.30–2.11. The service provider (e.g., service provider 2, OR = 5.61; CI:3.36–9.36) and individual clinician (OR covering the 95% midrange = 16.15) conducting triage were the characteristics most greatly associated with this potential under-triage; p < 0.001 for all. 

Conclusions: clinician-led urgent care triage is more accurate in identifying the likelihood of a need for ED or in-patient care than non-clinician triage. Non-clinician primary triage is risk averse, reflected in its high sensitivity but low specificity. Service and clinician characteristics associated with potential under-triage need further investigation to inform ways of improving the safety and effectiveness of urgent care telephone triage. Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

Text
s12911-025-02888-x - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 3 February 2025
Keywords: Digital triage, Emergencies, NHS 111, Primary health care, Urgent care

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 498903
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/498903
ISSN: 1472-6947
PURE UUID: a3e4acbf-7a03-43a2-aaf0-4da401d2d68a
ORCID for Helen Atherton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7072-1925

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 04 Mar 2025 17:54
Last modified: 05 Mar 2025 03:15

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Vanashree Sexton
Author: Catherine Grimley
Author: Jeremy Dale
Author: Helen Atherton ORCID iD
Author: Gary Abel

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×