Factors Influencing the Decision to Attend a Pediatric Emergency Department for Nonemergent Complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the factors associated with parents' decisions to bring their children to the pediatric emergency department (PED) for nonemergent concerns. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary-care, pediatric referral center emergency department. We surveyed caregivers of children triaged to low-acuity levels using the Pediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale. We used descriptive statistics to report the proportion of patients who have a primary care physician, who attempted to contact any health care providers prior to coming to the PED, and other factors surrounding the decision to come to the PED. RESULTS: We approached 340 families, of which 300 were enrolled (uptake rate, 88.2%). We found that 32% (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.37) attempted to contact another health care provider prior to coming to the PED, and 59% (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.69) of those respondents were specifically instructed to come to the PED. The top 3 reasons for coming to the British Columbia Children's Hospital PED were (1) that it specializes in children, (2) child has medical issues previously managed at the same hospital, and (3) closest location to patient. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the majority of patients having a primary care physician, less than half of them actually contacted these providers (or another health care provider) before presenting to the PED for their nonurgent illness or injury. Of these, nearly two thirds were specifically instructed to come to the PED by the health care provider in the community.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".