Reliability and Usability of a 7-Minute Chart Review Tool to Identify Pediatric Prehospital Adverse Safety Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although medical errors in the hospital are a recognized source of morbidity and mortality, less is known about safety events in the prehospital care of children. As part of a multiphase study, we developed and evaluated the reliability and usability of the pediatric prehospital safety event detection system (PEDS), a tool used to identify safety events in prehospital care. METHODS: The tool was based on hospital chart review tools, literature review, and results from focus groups and a national Delphi survey. After reviewer training, preliminary testing, and initial use, we refined the tool on the basis of data analysis and reviewer feedback. Thirty charts were randomly selected from our study population of pediatric transports with lights and sirens in Multnomah County, Oregon, and independently reviewed by 2 pediatric emergency physicians with experience in prehospital care to evaluate interrater reliability and time to completion of the final tool. RESULTS: The PEDS tool contains 36 items, takes reviewers a median of 7 minutes to complete (interquartile range: 4-12), and exists in both paper and electronic formats. When comparing the presence or absence of severe safety events between 2 expert arbiters, we found 87% agreement (κ = 0.68), indicating good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The PEDS tool is the first chart review tool designed to identify safety events for children receiving prehospital care, and it displayed good usability and reliability in this study. With this tool, we provide a novel mechanism for researchers, clinicians, and prehospital care leaders to identify opportunities to improve care for children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".