Essential Content for Discharge Instructions in Pediatric Emergency Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the 5 most essential discharge instruction content elements that should be communicated to all caregivers of children who present to the emergency department (ED) with asthma, vomiting/diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, minor head injury, or bronchiolitis. METHODS: A discharge information content list was developed for each illness presentation following a review of the literature. Using a modified Delphi technique, 6 lists were distributed to a panel of experts from EDs across Canada using a secure online survey tool with the goal of achieving the 5 most essential discharge instruction elements. RESULTS: A total of 37 emergency clinicians completed all 4 rounds of the Delphi. Consensus for the final 30 content items ranged from 51.4% to 100%. Items pertaining to diarrhea/vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, and bronchiolitis obtained relatively high levels of consensus for all top 5 items. The majority of items (n = 19 [63.3%]) that reached consensus across the illness presentations were associated with instructions intended to educate caregivers on instances when they should return to the ED department. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide a better understanding of what should be communicated to caregivers of children who present to the ED with a number of different illness presentations. Results from this study suggest that health care providers agree on the importance of providing information to caregivers regarding when to return to the ED with their child. Reaching consensus among all experts in this study provides insight into the difficulty of standardizing discharge communication in the absence of widely accepted guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".