The Elder‐Friendly Emergency Department Assessment Tool: Development of a Quality Assessment Tool for Emergency Department–Based Geriatric Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and conduct a preliminary validation of selected subscales of an elder-friendly emergency department (ED) assessment tool. DESIGN: Content validation of tool by an international panel. Construct validation using care ratings of ED lead physicians and nurses. SETTING: Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The international panel comprised 34 clinicians, administrators, and researchers. The construct validation was based on a 2006 survey of ED lead physicians and nurses at all 103 EDs in the province, of whom 68 (66%) supplied complete data. MEASUREMENTS: The initial tool included five subscales: ED staffing, screening and assessment, discharge planning, community services, and care philosophy. Differences in subscale scores were examined according to ED size, and of these scores were correlated with care ratings made by lead physicians and nurses. RESULTS: The average scores for three subscales (ED staffing, discharge planning, and community services) varied according to ED size. After adjustment for ED size, three subscales (screening and assessment, discharge planning, and community services) were correlated with ED nurse or physician care ratings. A preliminary tool, taking into account all factors, is proposed. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence of the validity of three subscales of the proposed elder-friendly ED assessment tool. Results suggest that ED size should be considered in interpreting these subscales. Further evaluation and validation of the proposed tool will be needed to further its utility in helping to focus the quality improvement efforts of clinicians, managers, and administrators related to the care they provide older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".