Adolescent Satisfaction in an Urban Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We studied the satisfaction reported by adolescents when visiting a pediatric emergency department (ED) and elicited suggestions for improving the ED for teenage patients. METHODS: A 33-question survey was developed for this study assessing adolescents' overall satisfaction with their ED care as well as their views on the waiting time and setting, medical staff, treatment and discharge plans, and comparisons to general hospital EDs. The survey was administered at discharge home or admission to the hospital. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-two patients completed the survey. Two hundred fifty-nine respondents (92%) rated their experience as good or better. A decreased level of satisfaction was reported among adolescents waiting to see a physician in excess of 2 hours. Satisfaction was not affected by age, diagnosis, procedure, or disposition. Respondents felt safe in our department and were satisfied with the physicians and nurses treating them and their treatment and discharge plans. One hundred seventy respondents offered suggestions for an improved ED setting. Of the 161 patients who had previously attended a general hospital ED, only 11 patients (7%) preferred the general hospital setting. It was concerning that 184 respondents (65% of total) reported not having an opportunity to meet with their physician alone. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents were satisfied with care in our pediatric ED. Long wait times are associated with decreased level of satisfaction among adolescents. The waiting room setting and meeting a physician alone were important to adolescents visiting our ED.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".