{
  "abstract": "Hughes and Crouch’s commentary on Zaboli et al’s multicentre vignette study of the Manchester Triage System (MTS)1 2 raises the issue of changing case-mix since the first edition of Emergency Triage was published by the Manchester group in 1997. In its day, this was an incredible achievement and the book format with its flow charts gave it excellent ‘Face Validity’. The careful choice of verbal anchors (termed discriminators) and dictionary provided gave reassuring ‘Content validity’. However, due to the paucity of predictive validity testing and the method of reporting results, the extent to which MTS was failing seriously ill patients only became apparent relatively recently. Had nurses been told ‘False negative’ rates for assignment of the two most urgent acuities—red and orange, (table 1) rather than expecting them to decode receiver operator curves—complacency with MTS might have been more short-lived. The metrics supplied to emergency department managers failed to report deaths and adverse events for these missed patients.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Sort-ED Partnership LLP, Reading, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Gillian Francis"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Emergency Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Barbara Cleaver"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Directed Systems Ltd, Cambridge, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Mark Leaning"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Triage: an academic ‘blind spot’ in Emergency Medicine",
  "uid": "50c170e4-7f9e-57e4-a310-88cfa03f4ceb"
}