64 A Canadian multicentre survey of family needs when attending the pediatric emergency department
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Parents/caregivers strongly influence their child’s experience in the pediatric emergency department (PED). Understanding their needs can improve families’ PED experience and care. Objectives To describe caregivers’ perceived emotional, practical, and informational needs in the PED and how well these needs were met Design/Methods This descriptive, cross-sectional survey with medical record review was conducted at 10 Canadian PEDs from October 2018 to March 2020, over a 1-week period every season, for a total of 4 weeks per site. Digital surveys available in English or French were completed by caregivers in the PED and 7 days after their visit. Health literacy was evaluated by the Newest Vital Sign tool. Results A total of 2005 caregivers participated; mean age was 37.8 (SD 7.7) years, and 74.3% (1462/1969) were mothers. The mean child age was 5.9 (5.1) years and 51.9 % (1040/2003) were male. Caregivers’ main spoken language was mostly English [72.6% (1425/1964)] or French [10.5% (206/1964)]. Over half of caregivers had a university/professional degree [51.0% (997/1956)]; 37.4% (746/1998) had possible/probable limited health literacy. 77.9% (1132/1454) of caregivers reported that their overall care needs were met. 71.7% (1081/1507) of caregivers reported that their emotional needs were met; they reported most emotional support by doctors [(35.6%, 535/1510)] and bedside nurses [(24.2%, 364/1507)]. The median (IQR) length of stay was 3.9 (2.6, 6.1) hours; 36.7% (546/1487) of caregivers felt they waited ‘too long’, and 77.8% (1158/1489) did not know how long they would have to wait. 11.7% of families were dissatisfied with the care updates provided. A safe PED was the top overall identified practical need [(45.1%, 602/1336)]. Internet access was the most important practical need throughout the visit [(28.1%, 378/1345)], while more space was the most reported [(49.8%, 696/1398)] need in the waiting room. The most desired improvements in the PED were better communication of wait times and delays [(41.1%, 745/1812)], shorter wait times [(38.8%, 699/1801)] and faster diagnosis [(24.9%, 449/1803)]. Conclusion Almost one quarter of Canadian caregivers report that their overall needs were not fully met when attending the PED. Safety during the PED visit was of utmost importance. Nationally, caregivers value shorter wait times, rapid diagnosis, and better communication about perceived delays. Top practical needs included internet access and more waiting room space. Creating innovative waiting systems, better methods to share wait time information, free internet access, and improved physical spaces could better address identified caregiver needs in the PED.
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».