Availability of pediatric services and equipment in emergency departments: United States, 2002-03.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This report presents estimates on the availability of pediatric services, expertise, and supplies for treating pediatric emergencies in U.S. hospitals. METHODS: The Emergency Pediatric Services and Equipment Supplement (EPSES) was a self-administered questionnaire added to the 2002-03 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). NHAMCS samples non-Federal, short-stay and general hospitals in the United States. The EPSES content was based on the 2001 guidelines for pediatric services, medical expertise, small-sized supplies, and equipment for emergency departments (EDs) developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Combined response rate for both years was 86 percent. Estimates were weighted to produce average annual estimates of pediatric services, expertise, and equipment availability in EDs. RESULTS: One-half of hospitals (52.9 percent) admitted pediatric patients, but did not have a specialized inpatient pediatric ward. One-third (38.3 percent) admitted pediatric patients and had a separate pediatric ward; the remainder did not admit pediatric patients. Among those that did not admit pediatric cases, 30.4 percent were in counties that had a children's hospital. One-quarter of EDs had access 24 hours and 7 days a week to a board-certified pediatric emergency medicine attending physician. Only 5.5 percent had all recommended pediatric supplies, but one-half had greater than 85 percent of recommended supplies. Most hospitals without pediatric trauma service (90.7 percent) or pediatric intensive care units (97.5 percent) transferred critical pediatric patients to hospitals with these services. EDs in hospitals with specialized inpatient facilities for children were more likely to meet the AAP and ACEP guidelines for pediatric ED services, expertise, and supplies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".