A Consensus-Established Set of Important Indicators of Pediatric Emergency Department Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality assurance is a new and important area of research in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). There are few studies that describe which performance indicators best represent the PEM practice. The primary study objective is to construct a set of performance indicators that have been selected by current and former pediatric emergency department (PED) medical directors as most useful in assessing PED performance. The secondary objective is to assess which indicators are currently measured to assess performance in PEDs. METHODS: Current and former directors of accredited Canadian PEM programs were considered as eligible participants. A list of indicators was generated by a survey (item pool generation); this list was refined by clarifying unclear terms or eliminating redundant and unquantifiable performance indicators (item scaling); PED directors were asked to rate each item of this refined list to indicate which indicators were more useful in assessing PED performance (item prioritization). A novel ranking formula was used to prioritize those items considered most useful by a larger proportion of respondents, using the provided rating scores. RESULTS: Fourteen current and former medical directors were considered eligible participants. Indicators related to patient morbidity and mortality, adverse outcomes, return visits, patient length of stay (LOS), and waiting times were considered to be more useful. Less useful indicators included the number of deaths, daily census, number of incident reports, and individual physicians' admission rates. The most commonly measured PED performance indicators included the rate of patients who left without being seen, patient LOS, and the waiting time until being seen by a physician by triage category. CONCLUSIONS: The top quartile of performance indicators considered most useful by participants included indicators that reflected clinical outcomes, LOS, and waiting times. A dichotomy may exist between those performance indicators that PED directors considered more useful and those indicators that are currently measured.
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 | 0.072 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".