Patient caregiver preferences on discharge instructions from the Alberta Children’s Hospital Emergency Department
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Greater than 90% of children who visit a pediatric emergency department (ED) are discharged home. Effective discharge teaching is an opportunity to provide caregivers with the information that they need to provide care for their child at home, ensure appropriate follow-up, and achieve the best outcomes for the child. Discharge instructions should be in a format that families will find accessible and useful, and not result in unnecessary healthcare system costs. As a new electronic health record is being adopted in our ED, this is an opportune time to optimize and standardize discharge instructions. Methods: The study design was an anonymous, self-reported, 10-item cross-sectional survey in the ACH ED. Caregivers of patients aged 0-17 years were eligible to complete the survey and approached consecutively during shifts selected by availability of the project lead. Families who required an interpreter to communicate in English were not approached to complete the survey; instead, this was recorded to reflect those who would require translated resources. A sample size of 100 caregivers was chosen to provide a 95% confidence interval of +/- 10%. Survey questions covered preference of discharge instruction modality (verbal, print, electronic, or combination) and likelihood of using instructions if given in print or electronic format. We asked the caregiver’s primary language spoken at home and whether they would be able to use English-language resources. Finally, we tested the caregiver’s ability to use QR codes with a question that could only be answered after successfully accessing a QR code. The project was exempted from research ethics board review due to its classification as quality improvement. Descriptive analysis was performed, including calculations of proportions and confidence intervals. Results were analyzed using IBM SPSS software. Results: Of the 117 caregivers approached, 104 completed the survey (89%). Caregivers had a strong preference for written discharge instructions, with 98% supporting either electronic or printed resources in addition to verbal instructions, as opposed to verbal only. There was similar interest for both printed and electronic resources with the likelihood of utilizing that modality being reported as 75% and 79%, respectively. Three percent of families were unable to complete the survey due to a language barrier. Of the 104 completed surveys, 19% noted that their primary spoken language at home was not English. Nonetheless, 100% of participants who did not primarily speak English but were able to complete the survey reported that they would use English-written discharge resources. Eighty percent of the participants were able to successfully use the QR code and provide a correct answer to the test question. Of those who could not access the QR code, several reported that their inability was due to devices needing to be charged. Advice and Lessons Learned Caregivers of patients in our ED have a strong preference to receive discharge instructions in writing, whether printed or electronic. There was not a significant difference in preference for electronic versus paper written instructions. Some families will require translated resources, though many who do not speak English at home would still be able to use English resources. This does not diminish the importance of providing discharge instructions in a family’s preferred language. QR codes could be an effective tool for distributing electronic resources for most families, but there is still a sizeable proportion of families who are unable to use a QR code.
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 | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».