Emergency Medicine Physicians’ Views on Providing Unnecessary Management in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the views of emergency medicine physicians (EMPs) on the practice of providing unnecessary medical management in the emergency department. Methods: All EMPs in Saudi Arabia were approached to participate in this cross-sectional study. A self-administered online survey that collected the participants' demographic information and opinions regarding the unnecessary management provided by EMPs in Saudi Arabia was conducted between December 2020 and February 2021. SPSS 22.0 was used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 181 EMPs returned the questionnaire. More than 80% of the participants believed that EMPs order unnecessary tests or procedures at least a few times per week. The major reasons for ordering unnecessary medical tests or procedures were "concern about malpractice issues" (60.8%), "not having enough time with a patient for meaningful discussion" (47%), and "just to be safe" (46.4%). More than 55% of the respondents also believed that EMPs are in the best position to address the problem of unnecessary testing. Conclusion: Most of the EMPs who participated in this study recognized that ordering unnecessary tests is a serious problem that happens on a daily basis. Many factors and reasons were described by the participants, and multiple possible solutions were suggested to help overcome the issue. Evaluating physicians' perspectives on the issue is a key step in addressing the problem and implementing appropriate interventions.
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 | 0.019 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.156 | 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".