What do abnormal vital signs indicate?

Ball JW, Dains JE, Flynn JA, Solomon BS, Stewart RW. Vital signs and pain assessment. In: Ball JW, Dains JE, Flynn JA, Solomon BS, Stewart RW, eds. Seidel's Guide to Physical Examination. 9th ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2019:chap 6.

Simel DL. Approach to the patient: history and physical examination. In: Goldman L, Schafer AI, eds. Goldman-Cecil Medicine. 26th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:chap 6.

  1. Eitel DR, Rudkin SE, Malvehy MA, Killeen JP, Pines JM: Improving service quality by understanding emergency department flow: a White Paper and position statement prepared for the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. J Emerg Med. 2010, 38 (1): 70-79. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.03.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Meek R, Phiri W: Australasian Triage Scale: Consumer perspective. Emerg Med Australas. 2005, 17 (3): 212-217. 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2005.00725.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Manchester Triage group: Emergency triage: Manchester Triage Group. 1997, London: BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beveridge R, Clarke B, Janes N: Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale; implementation guidelines. Can J Emerg Med. 1999, 1: 2-28.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lethvall S: ADAPT - Adaptiv Processtraige/VITALHISTORIER. Version 1.1.2008. Giltiga 080424-090531 (Sweden)

  6. Nordberg M, Lethvall S, Castrén M: The validity of the triage system ADAPT. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010, 18 (Suppl 1): 36-10.1186/1757-7241-18-S1-P36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lauritzen M, Dahlin J, Skriver C: HAPT - Hilleroed Acute Process Triage. 2011, Accessed august 24, 2011, [http://www.hillerodhospital.dk/menu/Afdelinger/Akutafdelingen/Triage/]

    Google Scholar 

  8. Skriver C, Lauritzen MP, Forberg JL, Gaardboe-Poulsen OB, Mogensen CB, Hansen CL: Systematic process triage quickens the treatment of the most sick patients. Ugeskr Laeger. 2011, 173 (40): 2490-2493.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Farrohknia N, Castren M, Ehrenberg A, Lind L, Oredsson S, Jonsson H: Emergency department triage scales and their components: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011, 30 (19): 42-

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barfod C, Lauritzen MMP, Danker JK, Sölétörmos G, Forberg JL, Berlac PA: The formation and design of 'The Acute Admission Database' - a database including a prospective, observational cohort of 6279 patients triaged in the Emergency Department in a larger Danish hospital. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012,

    Google Scholar 

  11. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2008, 82 (3): 251-259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Prytherch DR, Smith GB, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI: ViEWS-Towards a national early warning score for detecting adult inpatient deterioration. Resuscitation. 2010, 81 (8): 932-937. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.04.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rhee KJ, Fisher CJ, Willitis NH: The Rapid Acute Physiology Score. Am J Emerg Med. 1987, 5 (4): 278-282. 10.1016/0735-6757(87)90350-0.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Olsson T, Terent A, Lind L: Rapid Emergency Medicine score: a new prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients. J Intern Med. 2004, 255 (5): 579-587. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01321.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Widgren BR, Jourak M: Medical Emergency Triage and Treatment System (METTS): a new protocol in primary triage and secondary priority decision in emergency medicine. J Emerg Med. 2011, 40 (6): 623-628. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzgerald G, Jelinik G, Scott D, Gerdtz MF: Emergency department triage revisited. Emerg Med J. 2010, 27: 86-92. 10.1136/emj.2009.077081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grafstein E, Bullard MJ, Warren D, Unger B, CTAS National Working Group: Revision of the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Presenting Complaint List version 1.1. Can J Emerg Med. 2008, 10 (2): 151-173.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jorsboe H, Schroder M, Barylak M, Anderson P: Inter-observer variation in the triage-process. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010, 18: P16-10.1186/1757-7241-18-S1-P16.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 


Page 2

  ICU admission In-hospital mortality   Missing
  ICU no ICU Dead Alive Total of total
All patients 102 6177 107 6172 6279  
Categorical Covariates       
Gender       
   Male 57 (55.9) 2974 (48.1) 56 (52.3) 2975 (48.2) 3031 (48.3) 0 (0)
   Female 45 (44.1) 3203 (51.9) 51 (47.7) 3197 (51.8) 3248 (51.7)  
Tfinal       
   Red 30 (29.4) 248 (4.0) 31 (29.0) 247 (4.0) 278 (4.4) 0 (0)
   Orange 40 (39.2) 1544 (25.0) 36 (33.6) 1548 (25.1) 1584 (25.2)  
   Yellow 26 (25.5) 2401 (38.9) 30 (28.0) 2397 (38.8) 2427 (38.7)  
   Green 6 (5.9) 1984 (32.1) 10 (9.3) 1980 (32.1) 1990 (31.7)  
SpO2 (%)       
   95-100 69 (73.4) 5440 (90.8) 64 (65.3) 5445 (90.9) 5509 (87.7) 191 (3.0)
   90-94 13 (13.8) 429 (7.2) 19 (19.4) 423 (7.1) 442 (7.0)  
   80-89 11 (11.7) 108 (1.8) 12 (12.2) 107 (1.8) 119 (1.9)  
   < 80 1 (1.1) 17 (0.3) 3 (3.1) 15 (0.3) 18 (0.3)  
RR (min-1)       
   > 35 3 (3.4) 35 (0.6) 4 (4.4) 34 (0.6) 38 (0.6) 785 (12.5)
   31-35 4 (4.6) 49 (0.9) 6 (6.6) 47 (0.9) 53 (0.8)  
   26-30 11 (12.6) 204 (3.8) 12 (13.2) 203 (3.8) 215 (3.4)  
   8-25 68 (78.2) 5119 (94.7) 69 (75.8) 5118 (94.7) 5187 (82.6)  
   < 8 1 (1.1)    1 (0.0) 1 (0.0)  
BP (mmHg)       
   90- 93 (97.9) 6008 (99.1) 93 (90.3) 6008 (99.2) 6101 (97.2) 120 (1.9)
   80-89 2 (2.1) 36 (0.6) 6 (5.8) 32 (0.5) 38 (0.6)  
   < 80 0 (0.0) 20 (0.3) 4 (3.9) 16 (0.3) 20 (0.3)  
HR (min-1)       
   > 130 9 (9.6) 111 (1.8) 4 (3.9) 116 (1.9) 120 (1.9) 126 (2.0)
   121-130 12 (12.8) 111 (1.8) 6 (5.8) 117 (1.9) 123 (2.0)  
   111-120 11 (11.7) 261 (4.3) 7 (6.8) 265 (4.4) 272 (4.3)  
   50-110 60 (63.8) 5510 (90.9) 83 (80.6) 5487 (90.7) 5570 (88.7)  
   40-49 1 (1.1) 56 (0.9) 2 (1.9) 55 (0.9) 57 (0.9)  
   < 40 1 (1.1) 10 (0.2) 1 (1.0) 10 (0.2) 11 (0.2)  
GCS       
   15 65 (73.0) 5472 (93.3) 63 (67.0) 5474 (93.4) 5537 (88.2) 327 (5.2)
   14 9 (10.1) 209 (3.6) 10 (10.6) 208 (3.6) 218 (3.5)  
   9-13 5 (5.6) 136 (2.3) 7 (7.4) 134 (2.3) 141 (2.2)  
   ≤ 8 10 (11.2) 46 (0.8) 14 (14.9) 42 (0.7) 56 (0.9)  
Admission day       
   weekend 24 (25.3) 1416 (23.9) 21 (20.6) 1419 (23.9) 1440 (22.9) 247 (3.9)
   weekday 71 (74.7) 4521 (76.1) 81 (79.4) 4511 (76.1) 4592 (73.1)  
Admission time       
   day 41 (43.2) 3163 (53.3) 61 (59.8) 3143 (53.0) 3204 (51.0) 247 (3.9)
   evening 33 (34.7) 1932 (32.5) 30 (29.4) 1935 (32.6) 1965 (31.3)  
   night 21 (22.1) 842 (14.2) 11 (10.8) 852 (14.4) 863 (13.7)  
Continuous covariates       
   Age 67 (17-93) 62 (16-108) 77 (29-99) 62 (16-108)   

  1. The table shows number of patients. The figures in parentheses are the column percentages within each categorical covariate. For continuous covariates median and range are presented
  2. ICU: intensive care unit; SpO2 : saturation of peripheral oxygen; RR: respiratory rate; BP: systolic blood pressure; HR: heart rate; GCS: Glasgow Coma Score; Admission time: day = 08.00-1559 hours; evening = 16.00-23.59 hours; night = 00.00-07.59 hours