Parental satisfaction with waiting time in a Swiss tertiary paediatric emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient numbers in paediatric emergency departments (PED) are steadily increasing. Parental perception of waiting time and reasons for attending a PED with non-emergencies have been investigated in the UK, Australia, Korea, Canada and the USA. We sought to examine which factors influence parental satisfaction with waiting time in a tertiary Swiss PED and whether these differed from other countries. METHODS: Paper surveys were administered to parents of children presenting to our interdisciplinary PED from February to May 2015. Primary outcome was parental satisfaction with waiting time, secondary outcomes were satisfaction with treatment, parental reasons for presentation with non-emergencies, parental perception of times to triage, first physician contact and disposition from ED, level of physician training, understanding of various anticrowding strategies and comparison of perceived and true waiting times to triage and physician contact. RESULTS: 739 out of 750 surveys were returned (57 complete, 298 with 1 or 2 missing answers). Satisfaction with waiting time (on a 5-point-Likert-scale; 1 being the best possible answer) was higher in groups with shorter waiting time until triage (+0.41, p=0.001), first physician contact (+1.43, p<0.001) and discharge (+0.71, p<0.001), higher triage category urgency (+0.47, p=0.044) and available entertainment (+0.82, p<0.001). Early first physician contact (+0.33, p=0.008) and time to discharge less than 4 hours (+0.37, p<0.001) was associated with greater satisfaction with treatment (p<0.05). The most frequent reasons for presentation were parental impression that the child had an emergency (n=265, 35.9%) and referral by the family doctor (n=245, 33.2%). CONCLUSION: To counteract parental dissatisfaction associated with waiting time, we suggest the implementation of feasible measures including entertainment while waiting, early first medical review and timely discharge from 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.036 | 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".