Table 4 Description of studies for the development and validation of instrument for obstetric triage

SETS

Veit-Rubin [27]

To evaluate the inter and intra-rater reliability of SETS and to explore the factors associated with an optimal triage

N = 40 trained triage professionals, first phase: n = 22 (13 midwives and 9 nurses), second phase: n = 18 (10 midwives and 8 nurses) to evaluate IRR^a and ITR^b 1191 evaluation of 30 clinical vignettes

Years of health professional experience: median (IQR) = 16 (8–18), n(%): < 6 y = 4 (18.2), 6–12 y = 4 (18.2), ≥12 y = 14 (63.6)

Months of experience in gynecology and obstetric: median (IQR^c) = 42 (18–120), n (%): < 24 m = 7(31.8), 24–48 m = 4 (18.2), ≥48 m = 11 (50.0)

Months of experience with the triage process: median (IQR^c) = 15 (3–36), n (%): < 1 y = 10 (45.4), > 1 y = 12 (54.6)

OTAS

Smithson [11]

To test the interrater reliability and validity of OTAS and to determine the distribution of patient acuity and flow by OTAS level

N = 8 triage nurses to test IRR of 110 clinical Scenarios

Not reported

Gratton [9]

To compare the inter-rater reliability (IRR^a) in tertiary and community hospital settings and measure the intra-rater reliability (ITR^b) of OTAS; to establish the validity of OTAS, and to present the first revision of OTAS from the national obstetrical triage working group.

N = 7 triage nurses to determine ITR^b of 110 clinical scenarios by test-retest reliability & n = 36 obstetrical triage nurses; London health sciences center = 8, Stratford general hospital = 11, Chatham general hospital = 7 to compare IRR^a in tertiary and community hospital settings

Not reported

BSOTS

Kenyon [16]

development, implementation

and initial evaluation of BSOTS

N = 994 sets of maternity notes to audit before and after implementation of BSOTS by 30 clinical midwives

Age range, n (%): 20–29 y = 5 (16.7), 30–39 y = 9 (30), 40–49 y = 8 (26.7), 50–59 y = 6 (13.3), >  60 y = 2 (6.7)

Years worked in midwifery, n (%): less than 1 y = 0 (0), 1–5 y = 6 (20), 6–10 y = 10 (33.3), 11–15 y = 2 (6.7), > 16 y = 12 (40)

Work in triage, n (%): daily = 1 (3.3), 1–2 times/week = 13 (43.3), 1–2 times/months = 11 (36.7), 1–2 times/3 months = 5 (16.7), Never = 0 (0)

MFTI

Ruhl [6]

To describe the development and content validity testing of the MFTI.

N = 45 (round 1:11 registered nurses, 11 certified nurse-midwives, and 11 physician and round 2: 4 registered nurses, 4 certified nurse-midwives, and 4 physician)

Years caring for women in OB triage by nurses, n (%) round 1: 3–6 y = 2(18), 7–10 y = 3 (27), 11–20 y = 0(0), >  20 y = 6 (55) & round 2: 3–6 y = 0(0), 7–10 y = 0(0), 11–20 y = 0(0), > 20 y = 4 (100)

Years caring for women in OB triage by physicians, n (%) round 1: 3–6 y = 2 (18), 7–10 y = 0(0), 11–20 y = 4 (36), >  20 y = 5 (45), round 2: 3–6 y = 0 (0), 7–10 y = 0 (0), 11–20 y = 1 (25), > 20 y = 3 (75)

Years caring for women in OB triage by nurse-midwives, n (%), round 1: 3–6 y = 1(9), 7–10 y = 0(0), 11–20 y = 4 (36), >  20 y = 6 (55), round 2: 3–6 y = 1 (25), 7–10 y = 1 (25), 11–20 y = 0 (0), >  20 y = 2 (50)

Ruhl [7]

To conduct interrater reliability testing of the MFTI.

N = 10 registered nurses for triage assessments of 211 pregnant women

Experience in obstetric triage: n(%), <  4 y = 3 (30), 5–15 y = 4 (40), 16–25 y = 1(10), 26–35 y = 2 (20)

Work in triage: n(%), the day shift (7 am to 7 pm) = 5 (50), the night shift (7 pm to 7 am) = 5 (50)