Elsevier

The Lancet

Volume 335, Issue 8697, 5 May 1990, Pages 1070-1073
The Lancet

CLINICAL PRACTICE
Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures

https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(90)92640-4Get rights and content

Abstract

To develop guidelines for ranking the urgency with which patients with angiographically proven coronary disease need revascularisation procedures, factors that a panel of cardiac specialists agreed were likely to affect urgency were incorporated into 438 fictitious case-histories. Each panelist then rated the cases on a 7-point scale based on maximum acceptable waiting time for surgery; 1 on the scale represented emergency surgery and 7 delays of up to 6 months. For only 1% of cases was there agreement on a single rating by at least 12/16 panelists. Results of this ranking exercise were used by the panel to draw up triage guidelines. The three main urgency determinants were severity and stability of symptoms of angina, coronary anatomy from angiographic studies, and results of non-invasive tests for risk of ischaemia. Together these three factors generally gave an urgency rating for any given case to within less than 0·25 scale points of the value predicted with all factors. A numerical scoring system was derived to permit rapid estimation of the panel's recommended ratings.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (110)

  • Triaging the Terminally Ill—Development of the Responding to Urgency of Need in Palliative Care (RUN-PC) Triage Tool

    2020, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
    Citation Excerpt :

    The concept of triage—that is, determining the order in which patients are treated using a systematic framework—is well established in emergency medicine and disaster response.10,11 Likewise, waiting lists for elective surgery and other procedures have been managed with evidence-based guidelines and regularly audited for many years.12–16 Indeed resource allocation is increasingly being examined across all facets of health care to define and strive for quality, equity, and value,17,18 yet this lens of scrutiny has not been applied to some of the sickest patients in our community—those with terminal illness.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text