A Content Analysis of Parents' Written Communication of Needs and Expectations for Emergency Care of Their Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the potential value of information shared by parents on a written form designed to capture needs and expectations for care to an emergency department (ED) system that values patient-centeredness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective content analysis of parent-completed written forms collected during an improvement project focused on parent-provider communication in a pediatric ED. The primary outcome was potential value of the completed forms to a patient-centered ED system, defined as a form that was legible, included observations that mapped to medical problems, and included reasonable parental requests. We analyzed variation in potential value and other form attributes across a priori-defined visit type and acuity. Visit type was validated by a separate, blinded medical record review. RESULTS: A random stratified sample of 1008 forms was established from 6937 parent-completed forms collected during the 6-month improvement project; 995 of 1008 forms had matching medical records; 922 (92.7%) of 995 forms demonstrated potential value; 990 (99.5%) of 995 forms were legible; 948 (95.3%) of 995 forms included observations that mapped to a medical problem, and 599 (93.3%) of 642 forms contained reasonable parental requests. There was good agreement between the form and medical record for visit type (κ = 0.62). The potential value of forms did not vary significantly across visit type (88.2%-92.8%) or acuity (88.9%-93.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Information shared by parents on written forms designed to capture needs and expectations provides potential value to a patient-centered ED system. The high level of informational value is consistent across patient type and acuity level.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".