Ayesha Khan

All Publications

• One-two-triage: validation and reliability of a novel triage system for low-resource settings. Emergency medicine journal Khan, A., Mahadevan, S. V., Dreyfuss, A., Quinn, J., Woods, J., Somontha, K., Strehlow, M. 2016; 33 (10): 709-715

  Abstract

  To validate and assess reliability of a novel triage system, one-two-triage (OTT), that can be applied by inexperienced providers in low-resource settings.This study was a two-phase prospective, comparative study conducted at three hospitals. Phase I assessed criterion validity of OTT on all patients arriving at an American university hospital by comparing agreement among three methods of triage: OTT, Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and physician-defined acuity (the gold standard). Agreement was reported in normalised and raw-weighted Cohen ? using two different scales for weighting, Expert-weighted and triage-weighted ?. Phase II tested reliability, reported in Fleiss ?, of OTT using standardised cases among three groups of providers at an urban and rural Cambodian hospital and the American university hospital.Normalised for prevalence of patients in each category, OTT and ESI performed similarly well for expert-weighted ? (OTT ?=0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; ESI ?=0.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.53) and triage-weighted ? (?=0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.61; ESI ?=0.57, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.64). Without normalising, agreement with gold standard was less for both systems but performance of OTT and ESI remained similar, expert-weighted (OTT ?=0.57, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.62; ESI ?=0.6, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.66) and triage-weighted (OTT ?=0.31, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.38; ESI ?=0.41, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.4). In the reliability phase, all triagers showed fair inter-rater agreement, Fleiss ? (?=0.308).OTT can be reliably applied and performs as well as ESI compared with gold standard, but requires fewer resources and less experience.

  View details for DOI 10.1136/emermed-2015-205430

  View details for PubMedID 27466347

• Emergency Care Research Funding in the Global Health Context: Trends, Priorities, and Future Directions ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE Vu, A., Duber, H. C., Sasser, S. M., Hansoti, B., Lynch, C., Khan, A., Johnson, T., Modi, P., Clattenburg, E. J., Hargarten, S. 2013; 20 (12): 1259-1263

  Abstract

  Over the past few decades there has been a steady growth in funding for global health, yet generally little is known about funding for global health research. As part of the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, a session was convened to discuss emergency care research funding in the global health context. Overall, the authors found a lack of evidence available to determine funding priorities or quantify current funding for acute care research in global health. This article summarizes the initial preparatory research and reports on the results of the consensus conference focused on identifying challenges and strategies to improve funding for global emergency care research. The consensus conference meeting led to the creation of near- and long-term goals to strengthen global emergency care research funding and the development of important research questions. The research questions represent a consensus view of important outstanding questions that will assist emergency care researchers to better understand the current funding landscape and bring evidence to the debate on funding priorities of global health and emergency care. The four key areas of focus for researchers are: 1) quantifying funding for global health and emergency care research, 2) understanding current research funding priorities, 3) identifying barriers to emergency care research funding, and 4) using existing data to quantify the need for emergency services and acute care research. This research agenda will enable emergency health care scientists to use evidence when advocating for more funding for emergency care research.

  View details for DOI 10.1111/acem.12267

  View details for Web of Science ID 000328566800008

  View details for PubMedID 24341581