The quality of communication, length of calls and perceived efficiency for all calls comparing undertriaged and overtriaged calls with optimally triaged calls for all health professionals together
| Communicative items (AQTT) | Undertriaged 1–3 | Optimally triaged 4 | Overtriaged 5–7 |
| Median (10th and 90th percentile) | Median (10th and 90th percentile) | Median (10th and 90th percentile) | |
| Overall perceived communication† | 5 (2 to 8)** | 7 (4 to 9) | 6 (3 to 9)** |
| Overall perceived efficiency† | 5 (1 to 8)** | 8 (3 to 10) | 6 (2 to 9)** |
| Length of call† | 230 (98 to 471)* | 197 (90 to 426) | 198 (81.2 to 427) |
| 12: Gives the caller sufficient time and space to describe the situation† | 3 (2 to 4)** | 4 (3 to 5) | 4 (2 to 5)* |
| 13: Conducts the conversation in understandable language adapted to the caller’s situation† | 4 (2 to 5)** | 4 (3 to 5) | 4 (3 to 5)* |
| 14: Ensures that the triage decision and the advice given are understandable and feasible† | 3 (2 to 5)** | 4 (3 to 5) | 3 (3 to 5)* |
| 15: Ensures that the caller agrees on the triage decision and advice given and is accommodating in case of disagreement† | 3 (2 to 5)** | 4 (3 to 5) | 3 (2 to 5)* |
| 16: Structures the conversation† | 3 (2 to 4)** | 4 (2 to 5) | 3 (2 to 4)** |
| 17: Masters suitable questioning techniques (including suitable use of open-ended, closed-ended and non-leading questions)† | 3 (1 to 4)** | 3 (2 to 4) | 3 (2 to 4)** |
| 18: Summarises (if relevant), verifies and adjusts if needed† | 3 (2 to 4)** | 3 (2 to 4) | 3 (2 to 4)* |
| 19: Pays attention to the caller’s experience and situation† | 3 (2 to 4)** | 3 (2 to 5) | 3 (2 to 5)* |
| 20: Conducts the conversation in an accommodating and friendly tone† | 4 (3 to 5)** | 4 (3 to 5) | 4 (3 to 5)** |
Rating scale for item 11 assessing accuracy of triage decision with definitions of each rating: 1. Severe undertriage: the call is undertriaged with risk of severe consequences; 2. Moderate undertriage: the call is undertriaged, but unlikely with risk of severe consequences; 3. Mild undertriage: the call is undertriaged, but could have been triaged ‘somewhat higher’; 4. Optimal triage: the call is optimally triaged; 5. Mild overtriage: the call is overtriaged, but could have been triaged ‘somewhat lower’; 6. Moderate overtriage: the call is overtriaged, it would have been sufficient with a ‘less burdensome service’; 7. Severe overtriage: the call is overtriaged; it seems completely irrelevant to choose this triage outcome.
Perceived accuracy of triage for all health professionals (n=1294): cumulated undertriage (ie, ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’) (n=189), optimal triage (ie, ‘4’) (n=820), overtriage (ie, ‘5’, ‘6’ and ‘7’) (n=223), ‘not applicable’ (n=62).
Median (10th to 90th percentile): Mann-Whitney U-test was used to pairwise compare rank sum between undertriaged versus optimally triage and overtriaged versus optimally triaged, significance level *p<0.05, **p<0.001.
†Indicates a significant difference (p<0.05) in rank sum between calls that are perceived as undertriaged, optimally triaged and undertriaged, using Kruskal-Wallis