MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020169967 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007064

How safe are our paediatric emergency departments? Protocol for a national prospective cohort study

2014· article· en· W2020169967 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amy C. Plint, Amanda S. Newton, Antonia Stang, Maala Bhatt, Nick Barrowman, Lisa Calder

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentProspective cohort studyPopulationPublic healthPediatricsEmergency medicinePatient safetyCohortMedical emergencyHealth careFamily medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events (AEs), defined as unintended patient harm related to healthcare provided rather than an underlying medical condition, represent a significant threat to patient safety and public health. The emergency department (ED) is a high-risk patient safety setting for many reasons including presentation 'outside of regular hours', high patient volumes, and a chaotic work environment. Children have also been identified as particularly vulnerable to AEs. Despite the identification of the ED as a high-risk setting and the vulnerability of the paediatric population, little research has been conducted regarding paediatric patient safety in the ED. The study objective is to generate an estimate of the risk and type of AEs, as well as their preventability and severity, for children seen in Canadian paediatric EDs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, prospective cohort study will enrol patients under 18 years of age from nine paediatric EDs across Canada. A stratified cluster random sampling scheme will be used to ensure patients recruited are representative of the overall ED population. A rigorous, standardised two-stage process will be used for AE identification. The primary outcome will be the proportion of children with AEs associated with ED care in the 3 weeks following the ED visit. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of children with preventable AEs and the types and severity of AEs. We will aim to recruit 5632 patients over 1 year and this will allow us to detect a proportion of patients with an AE of 5% (to within an absolute margin of error of 0.6%). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from participating sites. Results will be disseminated through presentations, peer review publications, linkages with emergency research network and a webinars for key knowledge user groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02162147; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02162147).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207