ER Triage Ethics Presentation Assignment Guide
Equal acuity settles the clinical question — so the presentation is about why a system produced a different answer, and what would stop it happening again.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 9, 2026
Equal acuity, and everything else the scenario tells you
The case is constructed so that the clinically correct answer is obvious and the socially tempting answer is not. Frank Jeffers and Brent Damascus present with respiratory difficulty of the *same intensity* — the brief says so explicitly — which means that on acuity they are equal and everything else the scenario tells you about them is clinically irrelevant. Employment, insurance, housing, arrest record, being a firefighter, being a frequent attender: none of that changes an Emergency Severity Index assignment. Say this early and plainly, because the whole presentation depends on it. The scenario is not asking which patient deserves care; it is asking why a triage system produced a decision that attracted negative press, and what would prevent it. Naming the irrelevant facts as irrelevant is more persuasive than ignoring them, since the audience at a staff meeting has already noticed them.
Four assessment criteria are named and each one must be visibly addressed, because this is a competency-based assessment rather than an essay. Explain the health care policies that can affect emergency care. Recommend evidence-based decision-making strategies nurses can use during triage. Describe the moral and ethical challenges nurses face when following hospital policies and protocols. Explain how health care disparities impact treatment decisions. Those are four distinct deliverables, and a presentation organised as a narrative about the case will satisfy some by accident and miss others. Build the deck around the four criteria and use the case as the running example inside each. Give each criterion a slide heading in its own words, so a marker working through the scoring guide can find the answer rather than infer it from the discussion. The ethical-challenges criterion is the one most easily absorbed into the others, so protect it: it asks specifically about the tension between hospital protocol and professional judgement, not about ethics in general.
The policy criterion is the one most often answered vaguely, and it has a concrete answer. Emergency care in the United States sits under a legal duty to screen and stabilise regardless of ability to pay, and that duty is exactly what makes Brent Damascus's uninsured status legally irrelevant at the point of triage. Beyond that, name the policies that actually shape the department: the triage scale in use and who is credentialled to apply it, the boarding and diversion policies that determine what happens after acuity is assigned, and the documentation requirements that make a triage decision auditable afterwards. Connecting the legal duty to the case is what turns this criterion from a definition into an explanation, since it says why the hospital's exposure to negative press was also an exposure to regulatory risk.
Evidence-based decision-making strategies must be *recommendations*, which means they have to be actionable at the triage desk rather than aspirational. The strongest are structural: use a validated five-level acuity scale and apply its criteria explicitly; take objective measures — respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, work of breathing — before forming an impression, because physiological data is harder to bias than a global judgement; use a second-look or reassessment interval so an initial assignment is not final; and audit triage assignments against outcomes by patient demographic, since a disparity nobody measures is a disparity nobody corrects. Say who would own each recommendation and how it would be checked, because a staff meeting audience judges a recommendation by whether it survives Monday morning. Reassessment deserves particular emphasis in this case, because inhalation injury can deteriorate over hours and an acuity assigned at the door is the wrong thing to treat as final.
The disparities criterion is where the presentation should be most careful and most evidenced. The point is not that individual nurses are prejudiced; it is that triage requires rapid judgement under uncertainty, and that is precisely the condition in which implicit associations, anchoring on a frequent-attender history, and assumptions about symptom credibility do their work. There is published evidence of differences in triage acuity assignment by race and ethnicity, and citing it moves the claim from assertion to finding. Brent's frequent-attender status is the most likely mechanism in this case, since a known history of non-specific complaints makes a new serious presentation easier to discount. Frame it as a systems problem with systems solutions, which is both more accurate and more likely to be heard by the colleagues you are presenting to. Say what would have to be true for your account to be wrong, since a presentation that acknowledges the alternative explanation is harder to dismiss than one that does not.
The mechanics are unusual and worth reading twice: a fifteen-minute oral presentation corresponding to about three pages. That is speaker-notes length, not slide-bullet length, so the deliverable is a script or a heavily-noted deck rather than a slide set. Fifteen minutes is roughly two thousand spoken words, which across four criteria is five hundred each — enough for substance, not enough for a long case recap. APA citation and formatting are explicitly graded under the communication competency, so references belong in the notes and on a final slide. Rehearse against the clock rather than estimating, because a presentation assessed at fifteen minutes is one where overrunning is itself a failure of the communication criterion. Write the script before the slides, because a deck built first tends to fix a structure the four criteria then have to be squeezed into.
Criterion | The version that loses marks | The version that scores |
|---|---|---|
The case | Weighs who deserves care | States that equal acuity settles it, and says why |
Irrelevant facts | Ignored | Named as irrelevant, which is the harder argument |
Structure | A narrative about the incident | Four sections matching the four criteria |
Policy | 'Hospitals must treat everyone' | Screening and stabilisation duty, triage scale, boarding, documentation |
Strategies | 'Be objective' | Objective measures first, reassessment intervals, demographic audit |
Ownership | Unassigned recommendations | Who owns each, and how compliance is checked |
Disparities | An assertion about bias | Published evidence on acuity assignment differences |
Mechanism | Generalised prejudice | Anchoring on the frequent-attender history |
Format | Slides with bullets | A script or heavily-noted deck, timed to fifteen minutes |
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Separate clinically relevant findings from socially salient but irrelevant ones.
- 02Connect emergency care policy and legal duty to a specific triage decision.
- 03Recommend triage strategies that are actionable and auditable.
- 04Evidence disparity claims rather than asserting them.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
What the presentation must contain
- 01A 15-minute oral presentation, roughly three pages of script.
- 02An explanation of the health care policies affecting emergency care.
- 03Recommended evidence-based decision-making strategies for triage.
- 04A description of the moral and ethical challenges of following policy.
- 05An explanation of how disparities affect treatment decisions.
- 06APA-formatted citations and references.
From the case to the disparities evidence
The case and what settles it
Establish equal acuity and identify the irrelevant facts.
Policy and legal duty
Explain what governs emergency care and how it applies here.
Evidence-based triage strategies
Recommend practices that are actionable and auditable.
Ethical challenges of following protocol
Describe where policy and professional judgement pull apart.
Disparities and treatment decisions
Evidence how disparity enters triage and what corrects it.
Measured differences, not asserted bias
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- Journal of Emergency Nursing
- American Nurses Association ethics resources
- Capella library
Search sequence
- 1.Find empirical work on variation in triage acuity assignment, because the disparities criterion needs measured differences rather than a claim about attitudes.
- 2.Look for the ethical analysis literature on emergency triage specifically, which supplies the vocabulary for the conflict between protocol and individual judgement.
- 3.Search for studies of triage decision-making factors, so the recommendations rest on what actually influences the assignment rather than on what ought to.
- 4.Retrieve the professional ethics standard you cite directly, since the assessment marks the application of professional standards and a paraphrase is weaker than the provision.
Triage assignment, decision factors and correction
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Racial Differences in Triage for Emergency Department Patients with Subjective Chief Complaints
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2023
Measured differences in triage assignment where the complaint is subjective, which is the closest published analogue to the judgement being made about Brent Damascus.
- 02
Evaluation of the factors affecting triage decision-making among emergency department nurses and emergency medical technicians
BMC Emergency Medicine · 2022
Identifies what actually drives triage decisions, which is what the recommended strategies have to work against rather than around.
- 03
Racial/Ethnic differences in emergency department triage assignment among visits for substance use
PLOS ONE · 2025
Evidence on triage assignment where a stigmatised history is present, supporting the argument that the frequent-attender record is a mechanism rather than a coincidence.
- 04
System Level Informatics to Improve Triage Practices for Sickle Cell Disease Vaso-Occlusive Crisis
Journal of Emergency Nursing · 2021
A worked system-level intervention correcting a triage disparity, which is the model for recommendations that are auditable rather than exhortative.
Before the staff meeting
Common mistakes
- Arguing which of the two patients deserves care.
- Leaving the socially salient details unaddressed rather than naming them irrelevant.
- Organising the presentation as a story instead of around the four criteria.
- Answering the policy criterion with a general statement about access.
- Omitting the legal duty to screen and stabilise regardless of ability to pay.
- Recommending objectivity rather than a specific practice.
- Leaving recommendations without an owner or a check.
- Asserting bias without citing evidence on triage acuity assignment.
- Missing the frequent-attender anchoring mechanism in this case.
- Producing bullet slides when the deliverable is script-length.
- Overrunning the fifteen minutes, which the communication criterion penalises.
Submission checklist
- The equal-acuity point is stated early and explicitly.
- The clinically irrelevant facts are named as irrelevant.
- Each of the four criteria has its own labelled section.
- The screening and stabilisation duty is explained and applied to the case.
- The triage scale in use is named.
- Each recommendation is actionable at the triage desk.
- Each recommendation has an owner and a way of checking compliance.
- Disparity claims carry published evidence.
- The anchoring mechanism specific to this case is identified.
- The script runs to fifteen minutes when rehearsed.
- Citations and references are in APA format.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.