Patient Reported Experience in a Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe patient-reported experience in a pediatric emergency department (ED) and determine: (1) whether there are differences between the experience children report in comparison to their parents; and (2) whether factors such as time of visit (day, evening, night) and ED census are associated with patient experience. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional survey of children ≥8 years of age and the parents/guardians of children 0 to 17 years who visited a pediatric ED using a validated patient experience measure. The proportion of respondents for each question indicating that an aspect of their care could have been improved was calculated as problem scores for each survey item. The primary outcome was the overall problem scores for all respondents combined and for children and parents separately. RESULTS: A total of 237 parents and 109 children completed surveys. The areas with the highest problem scores identified by both parents and children were: having enough to do while waiting to be seen (53.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 48.1, 58.8) and when to restart usual activities (34.7; 95% CI: 29.7, 40.0). There were meaningful differences in problem scores between children and parents including: doctors and nurses explaining what they were doing (parents: 19; 95% CI: 14.3, 24.7, child 40.4; 95% CI: 31.2, 50.2) and privacy when examined and treated (parents: 17.3; 95% CI: 12.8, 22.9, child: 36.7; 95% CI: 27.8, 46.5). CONCLUSION: There are differences in reported experience between children and their parents. This highlights the importance of including children when assessing patient experience in a pediatric setting.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".