82 This is My Child: Piloting and Evaluating a Special Needs Screening Tool for Pediatric Emergency
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Parents of children with developmental disabilities (DD) including autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or behavioural conditions can be reluctant to inform the medical team of their child’s diagnosis during a visit to the pediatric Emergency Department (PED). Knowing the child’s sensitivities and needs, however, could make it easier for the healthcare team to provide the best possible care. A one-page tool, “This is My Child”, was developed to bridge this gap. Objectives Evaluate the ease of use, benefit to child’s care, and overall acceptance of “This is My Child” from parental and health provider perspectives. Design/Methods “This is My Child” was modified from an inpatient tool which helped communication between staff and children with ASD and their families. Developed with input from PED healthcare providers, the tool entailed ten questions pertinent to children who have communication and sensory processing challenges, as well as a prompt for additional comments. Families were recruited in the waiting room, and the study was open to all who were willing to participate. The completed tool was attached to the front of the ED chart prior to the child being seen. At the end of the ED visit, parents and treating healthcare providers completed a questionnaire evaluating the tool. Recruitment was deemed complete once 30 children with a prior diagnosis of a developmental/behavioural condition had been enrolled. Following analysis of the questionnaires, focus groups were held with participating ED healthcare providers. Results Of 336 study participants recruited, 199 parents, 225 physicians and 135 nurses returned questionnaires. The large majority of parents, physicians and nurses indicated ‘Strongly or Somewhat Agreed’ that the tool was easy to understand. However, only 18% of physicians and 29% of nurses, yet 76% of parents, felt that the tool should be used for all children seen in the PED. This discrepancy between health care team and parental opinion was explored in the focus groups. Healthcare providers noted that the tool was beneficial in cases where unique developmental needs were reported. Concern was raised given the tool’s perceived lack of relevance for children without special needs, as well as additional staff work for tool utilization. Conclusion This easy to use form was welcomed by families, but less so by physicians. Work is ongoing to integrate these perspectives.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».