ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Pediatr.
Sec. General Pediatrics and Pediatric Emergency Care
Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1634841
Ease pediatric emergency department crowding in Switzerland with high-quality telephone triage: a prospective multicenter study
Provisionally accepted- 1Medgate, Basel, Switzerland
- 2Pediatric Emergency Department and Children’s Research Centre, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction This is the first study evaluating the picture of a pediatric telephone triage service’s (PTTS) quality from the hospital, telemedical, and patient perspective, to provide a deeper understanding of its contribution to the relief of pediatric emergency burden. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter study from April 3 to May 15, 2023. All calls to the Medgate Kids Line of six hospitals providing pediatric emergency care in German-speaking Switzerland were included. Following telemedical counselling, patients were advised to visit a pediatric emergency department (PED) or a primary care provider (PCP) or were treated telemedically by the Kids Line team. Patients presenting to participating PEDs after calling were evaluated by a hospital triage specialist (HTS) to define telemedical triage’s appropriateness (appropriate triage, undertriage(safety), overtriage (efficiency); hospital perspective). Only PED presentations evaluated as undertriage or overtriage were peer-reviewed (telemedical perspective), while appropriate triages were adopted. Additionally, patients’ intention, adherence and satisfaction were assessed. Results We included 4061 calls. 24.9% cases were advised to go to a PED, 20.7% to a PCP, and 54.3% were allocated to telemedicine. HTSs evaluated 556 cases. The PTTS appropriately triaged 78.2% of cases according to the hospital perspective (undertriage: 8.1%; overtriage: 13.7%). After telemedical peer-review overall appropriateness was 91.7% (undertriage: 3.8%; overtriage: 4.5%). 606 patients provided feedback. Without PTTS, 76.9% would have consulted face-to-face medical care (PED: 60.6%). Adherence to triage recommendation was mostly high (PED: 84.1%; PCP: 23.3%; Telemedicine: 83.5%). Net promoter score was high (48.5). Conclusion This PTTS (>100’000 calls/year) based on clinical expertise and guidelines is appropriate, safe, efficient, and patient-satisfactory and prevents a considerably high percentage of patients from visiting a PED. While patient adherence to triage recommendations “PED” and “Telemedicine” was high, lower adherence to PCP referrals might be explained by deviations in parents’ perception of acuity, and/or limited PCP availability (at out-of-office hours). Triage appropriateness varied across perspectives. Incorporating such high-quality PTTSs into further regions of Switzerland may help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system.
Keywords: Kids Line, Telemedicine, Telephone triage, Pediatric emergency department, quality, pediatric patients
Received: 25 May 2025; Accepted: 13 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Schmitz-Grosz, Sommer-Meyer, van der Lely, Fritzmann, Staubli and Berger-Olah. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Krisztina Schmitz-Grosz, Medgate, Basel, Switzerland
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.