Efficacy of implementation of a 5 scale pediatric triage and acuity scale in pediatric emergency, Saudi Arabia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of the pediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (Ped-CTAS) for children visiting the pediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated all children presented to the ED during a 9-day period in March 2010. The Ped-CTAS triage system was used. Triage performance was analyzed on the basis of quality indicators, rate of admissions, rate of referral, observation duration, and relationship between investigations requested and CTAS level. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,337 patients were triaged. Overall, 4 patients (0.1%) were in triage level 1, 356 (12%) were level 2, 655 (22%) were level 3, 1810 (60%) were level 4, and 189 (6%) were level 5. The left without being seen rate was 6.25%. A triage duration of 5 minutes or less was carried out for 97% of cases. Within the CTAS time objectives, the waiting time to nurse and physician was 100% for cases triaged to level 1. The proportion of cases who needed observation was 100% for level 1, 85% for level 2, 53% for level 3, 33% for level 4, and 26% for level 5. The proportion of patients admitted to the hospital was 100% for level 1. The lower the level (more acute and emergent the condition) the more use of the laboratory and radiological investigations. CONCLUSION: The pediatric CTAS triage system is a good tool for categorizing pediatric patients attending the ED. Stratified by triage level, triage indicators can be used as indicators of ED performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it