Pediatric emergency department directorsʼ benchmarking survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To answer basic questions, using precise definitions, regarding emergency department (ED) utilization, wait times, services, and attending physician staffing of representative pediatric EDs (PEDs). METHODS: Ten questions with precise definitions were developed and sent to members of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association's PED Directors' Special Interest Group in November of 2001, with two repeated requests 3 and 6 months later. RESULTS: Twenty-one PEDs from 14 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada responded (41%). The average PED has 48,000 patient visits per year (range, 25,000-97,000). Two thirds have urgent care or fast track areas to see nonurgent patients, while only 29% have 23-hour treatment units. The average admission rate is 13.2% (range, 6.8-20.8%). The average rate of patients who leave without being seen is 1.6%. The average patient waits 1 hour to see a physician and spends a total of 3 hours in the PED. The majority of attending staffing is by pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) Board-certified/eligible physicians (73%), although a few PEDs are staffed only by PEM specialists. Attending staffing is 2.8 patients per attending per hour, or 0.36 hours per patient, with more staffing for PEDs with higher admission rates or acuity. The average entry-level base salary for PED physicians in 2000 was 117,250 dollars (range, 98,000 dollars-145,000 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Benchmarking of PEM staffing and performance indicators by PEM directors yields important administrative data. PEDs have higher census and admission rates compared with information from all EDs, while their attending staffing, wait times, and rate of patients who leave without being seen are comparable to those of general EDs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".