Perspectives of hospital emergency department staff on trauma‐informed care for injured children: An Australian and New Zealand analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To examine Australian and New Zealand emergency department ( ED ) staff's training, knowledge and confidence regarding trauma‐informed care for children after trauma, and barriers to implementation. Methods ED staff's perspectives on trauma‐informed care were assessed using a web‐based self‐report questionnaire. Participants included 468 ED staff (375 nursing and 111 medical staff) from hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, χ 2 tests and multiple regressions. Results Over 90% of respondents had not received training in trauma‐informed care and almost all respondents (94%) wanted training in this area. While knowledge was associated with a respondent's previous training and profession, confidence was associated with the respondent's previous training, experience level and workplace. Dominant barriers to the implementation of trauma‐informed care were lack of time and lack of training. Conclusions There is a need and desire for training and education of Australian and New Zealand ED staff in trauma‐informed care. This study demonstrates that experience alone is not sufficient for the development of knowledge of paediatric traumatic stress reactions and trauma‐informed care practices. Existing education materials could be adapted for use in the ED and to accommodate the training preferences of Australian and New Zealand ED staff.
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) | 0.001 | 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".