Development of Measures of the Quality of Emergency Department Care for Children Using a Structured Panel Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Performance measures are essential components of public reporting and quality improvement. To date, few such measures exist to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of emergency department services for children. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to use a systematic process to develop measures of emergency department care for children (0-19 years) that are (1) based on research evidence and expert opinion, (2) representative of a range of conditions treated in most emergency departments, (3) related to links between processes and outcomes, and (4) feasible to measure. METHODS: We presented a panel of providers and managers data from emergency department use to identify common conditions across levels of patient acuity, which could be targets for quality improvement. We used a structured panel process informed by a literature review to (1) identify condition-specific links between processes of care and defined outcomes and (2) select indicators to assess these process-outcome links. We determined the feasibility of calculating these indicators using an administrative data set of emergency department visits for Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The panel identified 18 clinical conditions for indicator development and 61 condition-specific links between processes of care and outcomes. After 2 rounds of ratings, the panel defined 68 specific clinical indicators for the following conditions: adolescent mental health problems, ankle injury, asthma, bronchiolitis, croup, diabetes, fever, gastroenteritis, minor head injury, neonatal jaundice, seizures, and urinary tract infections. Visits for these conditions account for 23% of all pediatric emergency department use. Using an administrative data set, we were able to calculate 19 indicators, covering 9 conditions, representing 20% of all emergency department visits by children. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured panel process, data on emergency department use, and literature review, it was possible to define indicators of emergency department care for children. The feasibility of these indicators will depend on the availability of high-quality data.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.195 | 0.231 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".