Adverse Events from Emergency Physician Pediatric Extremity Radiograph Interpretations: A Prospective Cohort Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: We determined how often emergency physician pediatric musculoskeletal (MSK) radiograph interpretations were discordant to that of a radiologist and led to an adverse event (AE). We also established the variables independently associated with this outcome. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted in an urban, tertiary care children's emergency department (ED). We enrolled children who presented to an ED with an extremity injury and received radiographs. ED physicians documented their radiograph interpretation, which was compared to a radiology reference standard. Patients received telephone follow-up and had institutional medical records reviewed in 3 weeks. An AE occurred if there were clinical sequelae and/or repeat health care visits due to a delay in correct radiograph interpretation. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,302 children (mean [±SD] age = 9.0 [4.4] years; 1,288 (56.0%) male]. Of these, 180 (7.8%; 95% confidence interval = 6.8 to 9.0) ED physician discordant interpretations resulted in an AE. Specifically, there were no negative clinical outcomes; however, relative to cases diagnosed correctly at the index ED, patients whose fracture was not initially identified encountered 77.2% more subsequent ED visits, while those falsely diagnosed with a fracture experienced 41.5% additional orthopedic clinic visits. Odds of an ED discrepant interpretation was significantly higher if a physician's pretest probability of a fracture was ≤ 20% versus> 20% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.6), patient's pain score was ≤ 2 versus> 2 (aOR = 1.6), and injury was located in a joint versus other location (aOR = 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physician discordant pediatric MSK radiograph interpretations that resulted in an AE occurred with regular frequency in a pediatric ED setting. AEs were primarily an increase in subsequent health care visits. Importantly, a low clinical suspicion for a fracture or injury located in the joint were risk factors for ED physician discordant interpretations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».