Patient-Reported Experience in the Pediatric Emergency Department: What Matters Most?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems is a validated tool for the inpatient experience, it may not address features unique to the pediatric emergency department (PED). There is currently no publicly available validated patient-reported experience survey for the PED, and what matters most in this setting remains unknown. METHODS: Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of parents of children younger than 14 years at a Canadian PED. Data analysis was performed using inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of patient-reported experiences that matter most to parents in the PED. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: (1) making waiting a positive experience, (2) taking the time to provide care, (3) forging a positive partnership, (4) speak up for safe care, and (5) making the environment feel safer. Parents highlighted that while waiting for care is not desirable, it is made more acceptable through the communication of wait time estimates and the presence of child activities in the waiting room. Furthermore, although interactions with providers are brief, parents emphasized the importance of creating an environment of partnership with open communication, taking the time to examine their child, and actively demonstrating the provision of safe, quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that a patient-reported experience survey in the PED may need to embed elements not currently captured in Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, such as waiting room experience, comprehensiveness of health assessments, and observations of safety measures. Future studies can use these findings to develop a patient-reported experience survey for use in the PED.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".