Pediatric Emergency Care and Medicine: Open Access

Introduction

Emergency departments (EDs) play a critical role in delivering timely and effective care to pediatric patients, who often present with a wide spectrum of conditions ranging from minor illnesses to life-threatening emergencies. Unlike adults, children require specialized assessment because of their unique physiological characteristics, variable communication abilities, and rapidly changing clinical status. Pediatric triage systems are designed to categorize patients according to the urgency of their condition, ensuring that those who need immediate intervention are prioritized without delaying care for others. Effective triage not only improves patient outcomes but also enhances the efficiency of emergency care delivery in resource-constrained environments. Despite the availability of several triage models, variability in accuracy and consistency persists, particularly in pediatric populations. The inherent challenges of assessing young children such as limited verbal expression, compensatory physiological mechanisms, and differences in vital sign ranges demand specialized protocols. Over recent years, pediatric-specific triage systems have been developed to address these gaps, with a focus on improving reliability, sensitivity, and ease of implementation. This article explores the principles, challenges, and innovations in pediatric triage systems, emphasizing how they contribute to accuracy and efficiency in emergency care [1].

Description

Triage in children is more complex than in adults due to developmental, physiological, and communication differences. Young children may be unable to articulate symptoms clearly, forcing healthcare providers to rely heavily on parental reports and observational assessments. Pediatric patients also exhibit compensatory mechanisms such as maintaining normal blood pressure until late stages of shock which may mask clinical severity. Furthermore, normal vital sign ranges vary significantly with age, making interpretation more nuanced. These factors increase the risk of under-triage, where critically ill children may be mistakenly classified as lower priority, potentially delaying life-saving interventions. Another challenge lies in the variability of triage systems across different settings. While some EDs adopt adapted adult triage tools, these may not accurately reflect pediatric needs, leading to inconsistent outcomes. Resource limitations in low- and middle-income countries further complicate the implementation of structured triage, with staffing shortages, overcrowding, and limited training affecting quality. Psychological stress in both patients and families adds another layer of complexity, necessitating triage protocols that are not only medically precise but also sensitive to emotional needs. Addressing these challenges requires standardized, evidence-based pediatric triage models tailored to diverse healthcare contexts [2].

Several validated pediatric triage systems are currently in use worldwide; each designed to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of emergency care. The Pediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (PaedsCTAS) categorizes patients into five levels based on presenting complaint, severity, and clinical modifiers, and has been widely adopted in Canadian EDs. The Emergency Severity Index (ESI), although originally developed for adults, has been adapted for children, incorporating age-specific physiological parameters. Similarly, the Manchester Triage System (MTS) has a pediatric component with flowcharts addressing common childhood presentations. In low-resource settings, simplified tools such as the South African Triage Scale (SATS) and the WHO Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment (ETAT) guidelines provide practical frameworks for rapid pediatric assessment. These systems emphasize observable signs like respiratory distress, circulation compromise, and altered mental status, making them adaptable where advanced diagnostics are unavailable. Comparative studies suggest that while no single system is universally superior, tools designed specifically for pediatrics outperform adapted adult triage models in sensitivity and reliability. The choice of system often depends on healthcare infrastructure, patient volume, and staff training levels [3].

Recent innovations in pediatric triage focus on integrating digital technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and predictive analytics to improve accuracy and reduce human error. Digital triage applications and electronic health records can standardize protocols, automatically adjust for age-specific vital signs, and provide real-time decision support. AI-driven algorithms are being tested to analyze clinical data rapidly and identify subtle indicators of critical illness, potentially outperforming traditional scoring systems. Point-of-care devices that integrate vital sign monitoring with automated triage scoring are also under development, allowing rapid and objective assessment in busy EDs [4].

Beyond technology, educational interventions and simulation-based training are proving effective in enhancing triage accuracy among healthcare providers. Standardized triage curricula tailored for pediatric emergencies help improve consistency across practitioners. Research is also exploring family-centered triage models, where parental concerns are systematically incorporated into assessment, recognizing that caregivers often detect subtle clinical changes early. In the future, a hybrid approach combining human expertise, digital decision support, and family input may offer the most reliable and efficient pediatric triage framework. Such innovations will be critical in addressing the increasing demand for pediatric emergency services worldwide [5].

Conclusion

Pediatric triage systems are essential for ensuring that critically ill children receive timely and appropriate emergency care. While challenges exist due to developmental differences, compensatory physiology, and resource variability, established tools such as PaedsCTAS, ESI, MTS, SATS, and ETAT have significantly improved pediatric emergency care across diverse settings. Ongoing innovations, particularly in digital health and AI, hold promise for further enhancing triage accuracy, efficiency, and standardization. Importantly, investment in training, family engagement, and context-specific adaptations will remain crucial for successful implementation. By advancing pediatric triage systems, healthcare providers can better safeguard the lives of children and optimize emergency care delivery globally.

Acknowledgment

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Clebone A, Burian BK, Watkins SC, Gálvez JA, Lockman JL., Heitmiller ES (2017). The development and implementation of cognitive aids for critical events in pediatric anesthesia: The Society for Pediatric Anesthesia Critical Events Checklists. Anesth Analg 124: 900-907.

                                                      Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

2. Marshall SD (2017). Lost in translation? Comparing the effectiveness of electronic-based and paper-based cognitive aids. Br J Anaesth 119: 869-871.

                                                      Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

3. Grundgeiger T, Hahn F, Wurmb T, Meybohm P, Happel O (2021). The use of a cognitive aid app supports guideline-conforming cardiopulmonary resuscitations: a randomized study in a high-fidelity simulation. Resusc Plus 7 100152.

                                                      Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

4. Brosseau L, Rahman P, Toupin-April K, Poitras S, King J, et al. (2014). A systematic critical appraisal for non-pharmacological management of osteoarthritis using the appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation II instrument. PLoS ONE 9: e82986.

                                                      Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at

5. Jin YH, Tan LM, Khan KS, Deng T, Huang C, et al. (2021). Determinants of successful guideline implementation: a national cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 21(1), 19.

                                                      Google Scholar Cross Ref Indexed at