Table 1.
Baseline characteristics (mean value with standard deviation) of the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” of the MTS in comparison to the other presentational flow charts.
Fig 1.
The different MTS urgency levels used in the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” vs. the other presentational flow charts, which were divided into two age categories (aged <65 years and ≥65 years).
Fig 2.
The mean values of the waiting time until initial contact with a doctor with 95% CI for the comparison groups of “unwell adult” and the other presentational flow charts.
The colored lines refer to the predefined MTS time limits. Exceedances in the MTS category "red" (immediate contact with a doctor) may be caused by a delayed setting of the "doctor contact timestamp" in the computer system. This is conceivable if, e.g., all personal resources are primarily tied up in direct patient care.
Fig 3.
The relative frequencies of the ICD-10 chapters used in the presentational flow chart “unwell adult”.
Fig 4.
Level of care of the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” vs. the other presentational flow charts (p < 0.001).
Fig 5.
ROC analysis of MTS level and admission to hospital in general of patients aged ≥ 65 years for the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” (AUC = 0.639 [0.578–0.701]) vs. the other flow charts (AUC = 0.730 [0.714–0.746]).
Fig 6.
ROC analysis of MTS level and admission to ICU for patients aged ≥65 years for the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” (AUC = 0.631 [0.547–0.715] vs. the other flow charts (AUC = 0.807 [0.790–0.824]).
Fig 7.
The different MTS urgency levels used in the in-hospital deceased patients triaged according to the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” vs. the deceased patients of the other presentational flow charts (p < 0.001).
Fig 8.
ROC analysis of the MTS level and in-hospital mortality for the presentational flow chart “unwell adult” (AUC = 0.682 [0.595–0.769]) vs. the other flow charts (AUC = 0.834 [0.799–0.869]).