Objective Little is known about obstetric telephone triage: the methods used to prioritize the severity of symptoms of obstetric emergency and other unplanned care requests originating by telephone. In large-scale obstetric units, there is a need for an evidence-based triage guideline. The aim of this study was to develop an obstetric guideline for telephonic triage. Design, Setting and Participants A multi-phase multi-center study was performed with consecutive drafts of the triage guideline using four focus groups, four observations of training sessions and two expert consultations based on the Delphi method. The study was performed in ten hospitals in the Netherlands. The obstetric care professionals involved were gynecologists, midwives, nurses, doctor’s assistants, team managers and application managers. After each focus group, each observation and each expert consultation, an interpretative analysis was undertaken. Based on these analyses, the obstetric telephone triage guideline was drafted. Measurements and Results The designed guideline describes the primary symptoms presented, five prioritization categories and several descriptors. Consensus (>90%) was reached during the second expert consultation. Fifty-seven (91.9%) participants stated that the obstetric telephone triage guideline was clinically complete, correct, user-friendly and well designed, and 61 (98.4%) participants judged that the newly designed triage guideline was ready to use in daily practice. Key-Conclusions and Implications for Practice An evidence-based guideline for obstetric telephone triage was developed through a multi-phase multi-center study with all stakeholders. The guideline was found to be clinically complete, correct, well-designed and user-friendly. It provides a uniform and concrete basis for assessing the severity of the symptoms of obstetric emergency and other unplanned care requests originating by telephone. It also provides a good basis to further develop this evidence-based guideline for telephone triage by continuous registration of all calls.

A triage system that prioritizes care according to medical urgency has a favorable effect on safety and efficiency of emergency care. The Dutch obstetric telephone triage system is comparable to physical triage systems. It consists of five urgency levels: resuscitation and life threatening (U1), emergency (U2), urgent (U3), non-urgent (U4) and self-care advice (U5). The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic and external validity of the Dutch obstetric telephone triage system in obstetric emergency care. Patients and Methods: The validity of the Dutch obstetric telephone triage system was studied in a prospective observational study in four hospitals. Diagnostic validity of usual care was determined by comparing the assigned urgency level of the Dutch obstetric telephone triage system with a reference standard. This reference standard was obtained by face-to-face clinical assessment in hospital following telephone triage. Clinical follow-up after assessment was also recorded. For statistical analyses, urgency levels were dichotomized into high urgency (U1, U2) and intermediate urgency (U3, U4). Self-care advice (U5) could not be studied because these patients were not referred to hospital. Results: In total, 983 cases (U1-U4) across the four hospitals were included, 625 (64%) cases were categorized as high urgency and 358 (36%) as intermediate urgency. The Dutch obstetric telephone triage system's urgency level agreed with the reference standard in 53% (n=525; 95% CI 50-57%). According to the reference standard the Dutch obstetric telephone triage system had undertriage in 16% (n=160) and overtriage in 30% (n=298) of the cases. Sensitivity for high urgency was 76% (95% CI 72-80), specificity 49% (95% CI 44-53). Positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 60% (95% CI 56-63) and 67% (95% CI 62-72), respectively. After clinical assessment, urgent care was needed in 8.7% (n=31) of the intermediate-urgency cases, none of these cases were life threatening situations. Conclusion: DOTTS shows an acceptable diagnostic validity with room for improvement.