Elder‐Friendly Emergency Department: Development and Validation of a Quality Assessment Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a comprehensive quality assessment tool for emergency department (ED) geriatric care. DESIGN: Four-step study: (1) Content development of tool by a multidisciplinary panel, (2) survey of ED lead physicians and nurses, (3) development of subscales using principal component analysis and clinical judgment, (4) reliability and validity assessment. SETTING: Province of Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Lead ED nurses and physicians at 76 Quebec EDs who participated in a 2013/14 survey (66% of 116 adult nonpsychiatric EDs in the province). MEASUREMENTS: Geriatric care items (n = 62) grouped into seven preliminary content areas (screening and assessment, clinical protocols, discharge planning, staffing, physical environment, continuing education, quality assessment), lead nurse and physician perceptions of the quality of ED geriatric care, institutional prioritization of geriatric care, and ED type. RESULTS: Thirteen subscales were developed; most were associated with ED type and quality indicators. CONCLUSION: Thirteen subscales for geriatric ED services are proposed for evaluation in various ED settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".