Emergency nurses’ triage narrative data, their uses and structure: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The first clinical interaction most patients have in the emergency department occurs during triage. An unstructured narrative is generated during triage and is the first source of in-hospital documentation. These narratives capture the patient's reported reason for the visit and the initial assessment and offer significantly more nuanced descriptions of the patient's complaints than fixed field data. Previous research demonstrated these data are useful for predicting important clinical outcomes. Previous reviews examined these narratives in combination or isolation with other free-text sources, but used restricted searches and are becoming outdated. Furthermore, there are no reviews focused solely on nurses' (the primary collectors of these data) narratives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines, we will perform structured searches of CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, ProQuest Central, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Library (via Wiley). Additionally, we will forward citation searches of all included studies. No geographical or study design exclusion criteria will be used. Studies examining disaster triage, published before 1990, and non-English language literature will be excluded. Data will be managed using online management tools; extracted data will be independently confirmed by a separate reviewer using prepiloted extraction forms. Cohen's kappa will be used to examine inter-rater agreement on pilot and final screening. Quantitative data will be expressed using measures of range and central tendency, counts, proportions and percentages, as appropriate. Qualitative data will be narrative summaries of the authors' primary findings. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: No patients involved. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed conferences and journals. Results will be disseminated using individual and institutional social media platforms.
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 | 0.152 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.016 |
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".