The use of outcome feedback by emergency medicine physicians: Results of a physician survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feedback on patient outcomes is invaluable to the practice of emergency medicine but examples of effective forms of feedback have not been well characterized in the literature. We describe one system of emergency department (ED) outcome feedback called the return visit report (RVR) and present the results of a survey assessing physicians' perceptions of this novel form of feedback. METHODS: An Opinio web-based survey was conducted in 81 emergency physicians (EPs) at three EDs. RESULTS: Of the 81 physicians surveyed, 40 (49%) responded. Most participants indicated that they frequently review their RVRs (83%), that RVRs are valuable to their practice of medicine (80%), and that RVRs alter their practice in future encounters (57%). Respondents reported seeking other forms of outcome feedback including speaking with other EPs (83%) and reviewing discharge summaries of admitted patients (87%). There was no correlation between demographic data and use of RVRs. CONCLUSION: EPs value RVRs as a form of feedback. RVRs could be improved by reducing the observational interval and optimizing report relevance and differential weighting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".