Education in the Waiting Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand parents' awareness of and reactions to a slide presentation based waiting-room educational initiative. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study at a Canadian tertiary-care pediatric emergency department (ED) with an annual census of 68,000 visits. An anonymous parental survey was developed de novo, and parents were asked to complete the survey during their low-acuity ED visit over a 2-week study period. Descriptive statistics were used to describe responses and themes. RESULTS: Parents completed 520 surveys (733 approached, 70.9% response rate). Eighty-three percent of respondents had previously sought care in the ED. Most parents (68.9%) were aware of the slide presentation, but only 33.7% were able to watch it in its entirety (20 minutes' duration). Of those who watched the whole presentation, 62.9% understood that lower-acuity cases are assessed in the ambulatory zone of the ED, and sicker children are assessed in the acute zone (89.4%), 79.9% felt the presentation helped them to understand how the ambulatory zone functions, and 83.2% appreciated the current wait-time information. General questions about common health concerns were answered correctly in 58.3% (fever), 56.0% (gastroenteritis), 50.5% (abdominal pain/constipation), 35.7% (earache), and 17.0% (head injury). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents were aware of this waiting-room educational initiative, but there was variable uptake of information. Parents watching the entire presentation appreciated the information provided, especially wait-time information, and felt it improved their experience. Knowledge of common health conditions was low; novel methods of knowledge transfer must be utilized and evaluated.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".