49 Implementation of a Sensory Toolkit in the Emergency Department for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by deficits in social communication and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities. Children with ASD frequently visit the emergency department (ED), and present more for primary care-related issues and other non-emergent reasons than children without ASD. Visiting the ED can be challenging and stressful for children with ASD, their caregivers, and the healthcare professionals caring for them. Sensory Toolkits are a collection of sensory items that can help to distract and calm children, including during times of stress. We hypothesized that a Sensory Toolkit will improve the experience of children with ASD and their families in our ED. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a Sensory Toolkit on the experience of children with ASD and their families visiting a tertiary-care hospital ED. Design/Methods After ethical approval was obtained, a pre-implementation survey was conducted on parents of children with ASD about prior experiences in the ED and their interest in a Sensory Toolkit. A Sensory Toolkit specific to children with ASD was developed through literature review and in consultation with families of children with ASD. The Sensory Toolkit, which included a light wand, squeeze ball, push-pop bubble toy, and other items, was launched in a tertiary-care hospital ED in June 2021 with 50 Toolkits. A post-implementation survey was conducted to explore parents’ experiences of their child using the Sensory Toolkit in the ED and to obtain feedback to help improve the Toolkit. Results In the pre-implementation survey, 80% (32/40) of parents felt that a Sensory Toolkit would improve the experience of children with ASD in the ED. Post-implementation, 100% (12/12; response rate ~25% from 50 Toolkits) of parents felt that the Sensory Toolkit was helpful for their child. Parents reported that the Sensory Toolkit was “AMAZING” and “A really great idea, thank you!”. Feedback provided regarding improvements that could be made to the Sensory Toolkit was highly patient-specific and often contradictory. One parent suggested more items to chew on while another parent suggested elimination of the chewable items and one parent loved the light up toy while another suggested to remove it. Conclusion The Sensory Toolkit contributes positively to the experience of children with ASD and their families in a tertiary-care hospital ED. This study will help inform improvement of the Sensory Toolkit in the ED, including consideration of more specialized Sensory Toolkits to meet individual patient needs. Given the success in the ED, the Sensory Toolkit could be expanded into other areas of the tertiary-care hospital and beyond.
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 | 0,005 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 ».