D
Debbie Travers
Researcher at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Publications - 76
Citations - 3111
Debbie Travers is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The author has contributed to research in topics: Triage & Emergency Severity Index. The author has an hindex of 22, co-authored 71 publications receiving 2714 citations. Previous affiliations of Debbie Travers include University of Pennsylvania.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Reliability and Validity of a New Five-level Triage Instrument
TL;DR: This five-level triage instrument was shown to be both valid and reliable in the authors' practice settings, and reproducibly triages patients into five distinct strata, from very high hospitalization/resource intensity to very low hospitalization and resource intensity.
Journal ArticleDOI
Why Do Patients With Cancer Visit Emergency Departments? Results of a 2008 Population Study in North Carolina
TL;DR: This is the first study to provide a population-based snapshot of ED visits by patients with cancer in North Carolina and efforts that target clinical problems and specific populations may improve delivery of quality cancer care and avoid ED visits.
Journal ArticleDOI
The emergency severity index triage algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid.
TL;DR: ESI v. 2 triage produced reliable, valid stratification of patients across seven emergency departments in three states and should be evaluated as an ED casemix identification system for uniform data collection in the United States and compared with other major ED triage methods.
Journal ArticleDOI
Five-Level Triage: A Report from the ACEP/ENA Five-Level Triage Task Force
Christopher M.B. Fernandes,Paula Tanabe,Nicki Gilboy,Loren A. Johnson,Rebecca S. McNair,Alexander M. Rosenau,Peter Sawchuk,David A. Thompson,Debbie Travers,Nancy Bonalumi,Robert E. Suter +10 more
Journal ArticleDOI
Implementation and Refinement of the Emergency Severity Index
TL;DR: Triage nurses at these two hospitals successfully implemented the ESI algorithm and provided useful feedback for further refinement of the instrument, which reproducibly stratifies patients into five groups with distinct clinical outcomes.