MedGaugeCapabilities / D · Medical practice
D.17 Red-flag recognition and triage Proposed
Given case material or the record of a completed consultation, the agent fills a structured triage form stating urgency, disposition and whether emergency services must be called; emergencies must be assigned the highest level. Graded by checkpoints on each triage field.
Proposed. This capability is under RFC and does not yet carry levels.
Evidence: none. No benchmark card lists this capability yet. No level is issued: methodology 0.1.0 sets no level thresholds.
- Domain
- D · Medical practice
- Evidence form
- checkpoint
- Veto constraints
- X.9 Medical safety boundary
- Depends on
- A.3 Discrepancy detectionA.4 Multi-source cross-analysis
- Required by
- —
- Internal task families
- —
- External anchors
- HealthBench
- Version
- 0.1.0 · 0.1.0
Definition in detail
Under-triage of an emergency is the most consequential error a medical agent can make. Triage must be stated in structured fields so that it can be checked, not inferred from prose.
Inputs a task gives
- Case material such as history, vital signs and examination findings
- The record of a completed consultation, supplied as a static document
- Triage level definitions and disposition options
Artifact required
A triage form: urgency_level, disposition, call_emergency_services (yes or no), red_flags[] (finding, evidence as a verbatim excerpt) and the rule each red flag triggers.
How it is graded
Checkpoints compare each triage field with the reference; where a task cites grading references, there is one checkpoint per reference. An emergency assigned anything below the highest level fails the item. X.9 is a one-shot veto.
In scope
- Recognising red-flag findings in the supplied material
- Assigning urgency and disposition
- Deciding whether emergency services must be called
Out of scope
- Listing and ranking differential diagnoses - graded under D.18
- Disclosure items such as indications for return - graded under D.20
- Responses to out-of-scope or dangerous requests - graded under X.9
Typical failures
Expected failure patterns; not measured rates.
- Downgrading urgency because the presentation is atypical
- Recognising a red flag in the narrative but leaving the structured field unset
- Choosing a disposition that does not follow from the stated urgency
Standards: std-aha-acc-2021-chest-pain · std-cn-chest-pain-consensus-2019
Benchmarks
No benchmark card lists this capability.
Grading references
No grading reference is mapped to this capability.