MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505521464

Do Emergency Physicians Educate Patients about the Dangers of Drinking and Driving after a Motor Vehicle Collision, and What Are the Barriers or Motivators to Do So?.

2016· article· en· W2505521464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meghan Garnett, Tanya Charyk Stewart, Kristine Van Aarsen, Wanda Millard, Rodrick Lim, Michael R. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of alcohol and drug education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentAlcohol intoxicationDescriptive statisticsSuicide preventionMedicineInjury preventionMedical emergencyOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction: Impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death in Canada and results in numerous emergency department (ED) visits each year. Methods: An online survey was distributed to 94 emergency physicians and emergency medicine residents at an academic tertiary care hospital in Southwestern Ontario. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: We received 76 responses (81% response rate). Physicians widely varied in the frequency with which they discussed the dangers of drinking and driving with patients. Only 13% had consulted the ED social worker and 32%> had used an alcohol screening questionnaire in the past 12 months. The greatest barriers to addressing drinking and driving with motor vehicle collision (MVC) patients were severity of injury, lack of time and intoxication. The great motivators were a sense of personal responsibility, concern for patients ' health and safety and having the time. Conclusion: The information from this survey brings awareness to the longstanding problem of drinking and driving, explores the barriers and motivators to addressing this topic in the ED, and can be used to develop new strategies to educate trauma patients on the dangers of impaired driving. INTRODUCTION Impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death in Canada (Stats Can 2011) and results in thousands of emergency department (ED) visits each year. Over 700 Canadians are killed by a drinking driver each year, and nearly 28% of all road traffic fatalities involve alcohol. (Vanlaar, Robertson, Marcoux, et al, 2012) In Ontario alone, more than 5,000 crashes resulted in personal injury or property damage after drivers had consumed alcohol in 2012. (Ontario Road Safety annual Report, 2012) Impaired driving leading to death, injury and property damage costs Canadians $20 billion dollars annually. (Pitel, Soloman, 2010) Physician advice has been well-demonstrated to have a positive effect on health behaviours. A 2013 Cochrane review on smoking cessation found that brief physician advice doubled the quit rate from an unassisted quit rate of 2 to 3% by an additional 1 to 3%. (Stead, Buitrago, Preciado, et al, 2013) In relation to alcohol consumption, brief motivational interviewing (BMI) has been shown to delay impaired driving and other dangerous traffic violations in young recidivists. (Ouimet, Dongier, Di Leo, et al, 2013) Evidence exists for the use of BMI for alcohol in both primary care (Nilssen, 2004; Kaner, et al, 2007; Solberg, et al, 2008) and inpatient trauma settings (Gentilello, Ebel, Wickizer, et al, 2005) to effectively reduce alcohol consumption and injury recurrence. (Gentilello, Rivara, Donovan, et al, 1999) Emergency physicians have a unique opportunity to educate patients on health behaviours after life-threatening events, when they are more receptive to advice and ready to change. Emergency department based brief interventions to reduce risky driving and hazardous drinking have demonstrated effectiveness. (Sommers, Lyons, Fargo, et al, 2013) In a study by Harrison et al., trauma patients who had exceeded drinking limits were more likely than other ED patients to have a strong desire to cut back on alcohol consumption in order to avoid situations where they could get hurt and to be more in control of their behaviour. (Harrison, Hoonpongsimanont, Anderson, et al, 2014) This, in combination with emergency physician support for a brief ED intervention (Graham, Maio, Blow, et al, 2000), suggests doctors could be doing more to capitalize on a teachable moment in the ED. We sought to describe our hospital practice as it pertains to educating alcohol-impaired drivers in the ED, in order to identify areas for improvement, as well as barriers and motivators for brief alcohol interventions by emergency physicians. METHODS An online survey was developed and pre-tested with surgical residents, and then distributed to all 63 adult emergency physicians and 31 emergency medicine residents at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of alcohol and drug educationSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207