Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services

Mustafa Şimşek; Ahmet Celal Özsoy; Zahit Dönmez; Hüseyin Avni Demir

doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1908114

Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services

Abstract

Objective: To examine the relationship between field acuity, prehospital physiological findings, and emergency department outcomes in communicative and clinically stable adults transported by 112 ambulance services. Methods: This prospective single-center study included 393 adults brought by 112 ambulance to a tertiary emergency department between 30 September and 10 December 2025 who could personally complete a standardized field form. Sociodemographic variables were self-reported, whereas field acuity, categorized vital signs, and prehospital interventions were analyzed as patient-mediated field records. Forty-eight-hour revisits and 30-day mortality were verified from hospital and e-Nabız records. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ICU admission. Results: Of the patients, 56.7% were male and 31.4% were aged ≥65 years. Tachycardia, hypoxemia, critical hyperglycemia, and a high shock index were observed in 14.9%, 12.5%, 7.4%, and 8.5%, respectively. Emergency department discharge, ICU admission, 48-hour revisit, and 30-day mortality rates were 75.6%, 15.8%, 11.5%, and 5.4%. Agreement between field assessment and emergency department urgency was weak (κ=0.06). Urgent field classification, critical hyperglycemia, hypotension, and any prehospital intervention independently predicted ICU admission. Conclusion: In this selected cohort, urgent field classification, hypotension, critical hyperglycemia, and the need for prehospital intervention were associated with ICU admission. Findings should not be generalized to noncommunicative or severely unstable patients.

Keywords

References

1. World Health Organization. Prehospital emergency care: operational guidance for ambulance systems. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025. Available from: https://iris.who.int/ items/455f7495-3e4e-45f3-be55-c7b56ea946c9
2. World Health Organization. WHO emergency care system framework. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/ who-emergency-care-system-framework
3. Önge T, Satar S, Kozacı N, et al. Analysis of patients admitted to the emergency medicine department by the 112 emergency service. Eurasian J Emerg Med. 2013;12(3):150-154. doi:10.5152/ jaem.2013.020
4. Yaylacı S, Cimilli Öztürk T, Çelik Yılmazer S. Retrospective evaluation of the urgency status of patients admitted to the emergency department by ambulance [Article in Turkish]. Acibadem Univ Health Sci J. 2013;4(2):64-67.
5. Silibolatlaz A, Gülen M, Avcı A, et al. Analysis of adult patients transported to a tertiary emergency department by 112 ambulance [Article in Turkish]. Bosphorus Med J. 2018;5(2):51-57. doi:10.15659/ bogazicitip.18.10.796
6. Kocaoğlu S, Alatlı T. Evaluation of emergency department ambulance admissions [Article in Turkish]. Van Health Sci J. 2021;14(3):312-318. doi:10.52976/vansaglik.941179
7. Bozatlı SBH, Sayhan MB, Akdur O, et al. Evaluation of the sociodemographic characteristics and urgency status of patients presenting to the emergency department by 112 ambulance: the Trakya University sample [Article in Turkish]. Balkan Health Sci J. 2024;3(1):15-26. doi:10.61830/balkansbd.1452546
8. Becker JB, Lopes MCBT, Pinto MF, et al. Triage at the emergency department: association between triage levels and patient outcome. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2015;49(5):783-790. doi:10.1590/ S0080-623420150000500011

9. Ganjali R, Golmakani R, Ebrahimi M, et al. Accuracy of the emergency department triage system using the Emergency Severity Index for predicting patient outcome: a single-center experience. Bull Emerg Trauma. 2020;8(2):115-120. doi:10.30476/BEAT.2020.46452
10. Trust MD, Schellenberg M, Biswas S, et al. Prehospital vital signs accurately predict initial emergency department vital signs. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35(3):254-259. doi:10.1017/S1049023X2000028X
11. Kim DK, Jeong J, Shin SD, et al. Association between prehospital field-to-emergency department delta shock index and in-hospital mortality in patients with torso and extremity trauma: a multinational observational study. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258811. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0258811
12. Yamada Y, Yamamoto Y, Inokuchi S, et al. Prehospital shock index predicts 24-hour mortality in trauma patients with a normal shock index upon emergency department arrival. Am J Emerg Med. 2023;70:101-108. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2023.05.008
13. Abbott TEF, Cron N, Vaid N, et al. Pre-hospital National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is associated with in-hospital mortality and critical care unit admission: a cohort study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018;27:17-21. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2018.01.006
14. Lindskou TA, Ward LM, Søvsø MB, et al. Prehospital early warning scores to predict mortality in patients using ambulances. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(8):e2328128. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28128
15. Saberian P, Abdollahi A, Hasani-Sharamin P, et al. Comparing the prehospital NEWS with in-hospital ESI in predicting 30-day severe outcomes in emergency patients. BMC Emerg Med. 2022;22(1):42. doi:10.1186/s12873-022-00598-5
16. Saver JL. Time is brain—quantified. Stroke. 2006;37(1):263-266. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000196957.55928.ab
17. Sabbatini AK, Kocher KE, Basu A, et al. In-hospital outcomes and costs among patients hospitalized during a return visit to the emergency department. JAMA. 2016;315(7):663-671. doi:10.1001/ jama.2016.0649
18. Tschoellitsch T, Seidl P, Böck C, et al. Using emergency department triage for machine learning-based admission and mortality prediction. Eur J Emerg Med. 2023;30(6):408-416. doi:10.1097/ MEJ.0000000000001068
19. Keskinoglu P, Sofuoglu T, Ozmen O, et al. Older people’s use of pre hospital emergency medical services in Izmir, Türkiye. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010;50(3):356-360. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2009.05.019
20. Abetz JW, Olaussen A, Jennings PA, et al. Review article: Pre hospital provider clinical judgement upon arrival to the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med Australas. 2020;32(6):917-923. doi:10.1111/1742-6723.13631
21. Leeies M, ffrench C, Strome T, et al. Prehospital application of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale by Emergency Medical Services. CJEM. 2017;19(1):26-31. doi:10.1017/cem.2016.345
22. Skjøt-Arkil H, Pontoppidan LL, Laursen JO, et al. Do prehospital providers and emergency nurses agree on triage assignment?: an efficacy study. Eur J Emerg Med. 2019;26(1):29-33. doi:10.1097/ MEJ.0000000000000503

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Emergency Medicine

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Mustafa Şimşek ^*
0009-0007-8040-4687
Türkiye

Ahmet Celal Özsoy
0009-0004-5849-088X
Türkiye

Zahit Dönmez
0009-0009-8833-2141
Türkiye

Hüseyin Avni Demir
0000-0003-2891-9345
Türkiye

Publication Date

May 18, 2026

Submission Date

March 13, 2026

Acceptance Date

April 13, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 17 Number: April, May, June 2026

DOI

https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1908114

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA93NN35ST

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Şimşek, M., Özsoy, A. C., Dönmez, Z., & Demir, H. A. (2026). Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(April, May, June 2026). https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1908114

AMA

1.Şimşek M, Özsoy AC, Dönmez Z, Demir HA. Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services. Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg. 2026;17(April, May, June 2026). doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1908114

Chicago

Şimşek, Mustafa, Ahmet Celal Özsoy, Zahit Dönmez, and Hüseyin Avni Demir. 2026. “Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services”. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 17 (April, May, June 2026). https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1908114.

EndNote

Şimşek M, Özsoy AC, Dönmez Z, Demir HA (May 1, 2026) Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 17 April, May, June 2026

IEEE

[1]M. Şimşek, A. C. Özsoy, Z. Dönmez, and H. A. Demir, “Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services”, Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg, vol. 17, no. April, May, June 2026, May 2026, doi: 10.31067/acusaglik.1908114.

ISNAD

Şimşek, Mustafa - Özsoy, Ahmet Celal - Dönmez, Zahit - Demir, Hüseyin Avni. “Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services”. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 17/April, May, June 2026 (May 1, 2026). https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1908114.

JAMA

1.Şimşek M, Özsoy AC, Dönmez Z, Demir HA. Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services. Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg. 2026;17. doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1908114.

MLA

Şimşek, Mustafa, et al. “Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services”. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 17, no. April, May, June 2026, May 2026, doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1908114.

Vancouver

1.Mustafa Şimşek, Ahmet Celal Özsoy, Zahit Dönmez, Hüseyin Avni Demir. Field Acuity, Triage Concordance, and Clinical Outcomes in Communicative and Clinically Stable Adults Transported by 112 Ambulance Services. Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg. 2026 May 1;17(April, May, June 2026). doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1908114