Paediatric-appropriate facilities in emergency departments of community hospitals in Ontario: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:We assessed whether the paediatric-appropriate facilities were available at Emergency Departments (ED) in community hospitals in a Canadian province. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EDs in community hospitals in Ontario, Canada that had inpatient paediatric facilities and a neonatal intensive care unit.Key informants were ED chiefs, clinical educators, or managers.The survey included questions about paediatric facilities related to environment, triage, training, and staff in EDs.RESULTS: Of 52 hospitals, 69% (n=36) responded to our survey.Of them, 14% EDs (n=5) had some separated spaces available for paediatric patients.About 53% (n=19) of EDs lacked children activities, e.g., toys.Only 11% (n=4) EDs were using paediatric triage scales and 42% (n=15) had a designated paediatric resuscitation bay.Only half of the ED (n=18) required from their staff to update paediatric life support training.Only 31% (n=11) had a designated liaison paediatrician for the ED.Paediatric social worker was present in only 8% (n=3) of EDs in community hospitals.CONCLUSION: Most of the Ontario community hospital EDs included in this survey had inadequate facilities for paediatric patients such as specifi c waiting and treatment areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".