Characteristics of patients and families who make early return visits to the pediatric emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to identify reasons why parents make early return visits, within 72 hours of discharge from a tertiary care pediatric emergency department (PED). A secondary objective was to investigate associated demographic and diagnostic variables. METHODS: A survey was conducted with a convenience sample of parents of children returning to the PED within 72 hours of discharge. A chart review was also completed for consented survey participants. Recruitment occurred from September 2005 to August 2006 at the Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. RESULTS: A total of 264 parents were approached to participate. Overall, 231 surveys were returned and 212 (92%) charts were reviewed. The overall rate of early return during the study period was 5.4%. More than half of parents stated that they returned because their child's condition worsened and many parents (66.7%) reported feeling stressed. Patients were typically under 6 years of age (67.4%), and most frequently diagnosed with infectious diseases (38.0%). Patients triaged with the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) as CTAS 2 (emergent) for initial visits were more likely to be admitted on return, regardless of age (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Variables associated with early returns included young age, diagnosis, triage acuity, and parental stress. Future variable definition should include a deeper exploration of modifiable factors such as parental stress and patient education. These next steps may help direct interventions and resources to address needs in this group and possibly pre-empt the need to return.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".