Waiting and hoping: a phenomenographic study of the experiences of boarded patients in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To understand the experiences and concerns of patients in the emergency department during inpatient boarding. BACKGROUND: Boarding in the emergency department is an increasingly common phenomenon worldwide. Emergency department staff, patients and their families become more stressed as the duration of boarding in the emergency department increases. Yet, there is limited knowledge of the experiences and concerns of boarded patients. DESIGN: The qualitative approach of phenomenography was used in the study. METHODS: The phenomenographic study was conducted in one emergency department that treats approximately 15,000 patients each month. Twenty emergency department boarding patients were recruited between July-September 2014. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. The seven steps of qualitative data analysis for a phenomenographic study - familiarisation, articulation, condensation, grouping, comparison, labelling and contrasting - were employed to develop an understanding of participants' experiences and concerns during their inpatient boarding in the emergency department. RESULTS: The perceptions that emerged from the data were collected into four categories of description of the phenomenon of emergency department boarding patients: a helpless choice; loyalty to specific hospitals and doctors; an inevitable challenge of life; and distrust of the healthcare system. The outcome space for the emergency department boarding patients was waiting and hoping for a cure. CONCLUSION: The experiences and concerns of emergency department boarding patients include physical, psychological, spiritual and health system dimensions. It is necessary to develop an integrated model of care for these patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients who are placed on boarding status in the ED will help emergency healthcare professionals to improve the quality of emergency care. There is a need to develop a care model and associated intervention measures for emergency department patients during the boarding process. The results of this study will help health regulatory authorities to develop an appropriate emergency department boarding system so that patients receive better emergency care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".