Tumultuous Atmosphere (Physical, Mental), the Main Barrier to Emergency Department Inter-Professional Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A highly important factor in enhancing quality of patient care and job satisfaction of health care staff is inter-professional communication. Due to the critical nature of the work environment, the large number of staff and units, and complexity of professional tasks and interventions, inter-professional communication in an emergency department is particularly and exceptionally important. Despite its importance, inter-professional communication in emergency department seems unfavorable. Thus, this study was designed to explain barriers to inter-professional communication in an emergency department. METHODOLOGY & METHODS: This was a qualitative study with content analysis approach, based on interviews conducted with 26 participants selected purposively, with diversity of occupation, position, age, gender, history, and place of work. Interviews were in-depth and semi-structured, and data were analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach. RESULTS: In total, 251 initial codes were extracted from 30 interviews (some of the participants re-interviewed) and in the reducing trend of final results, 5 categories were extracted including overcrowded emergency, stressful emergency environment, not discerning emergency conditions, ineffective management, and inefficient communication channels. Tumultuous atmosphere (physical, mental) was the common theme between categories, and was decided to be the main barrier to effective inter-professional communication. CONCLUSION: Tumultuous atmosphere (physical-mental) was found to be the most important barrier to inter-professional communication. This study provided a better understanding of these barriers in emergency department, often neglected in most studies. It is held that by reducing environmental turmoil (physical-mental), inter-professional communication can be improved, thereby improving patient care outcomes and personnel job satisfaction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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".