The Parent Perspective on Return Visits to the Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Return visits to the pediatric emergency department (ED) give insight into the unmet needs of patients and families. The aim of this study was to capture the parent perspective on factors contributing to return visits to the pediatric ED. Methods This is a prospective cohort study consisting of an 11-item survey that was administered to parents of children who had a return visit to the ED less than 72 hours from their initial visit. Surveys were distributed over an 8-month period between November 2015 and June 2016. Results The primary reason parents report for returning to the ED is that their child had ongoing or worsening symptoms (55%). Parents were satisfied with the care they received at the initial ED visit (89% report excellent, very good or good care). For parents who report that the initial visit could have been improved, they report wanting more tests done (54%), a better follow-up plan arranged by the ED (31%), consultation with a specialist (26%), admission to hospital on the initial visit (26%), and better communication and more time spent with the ED physician (21%). The majority (97%) of parents reported that their child has a primary care provider, and 39% of parents brought their child to a health care provider for the same problem in the 7 days before their return visit to the ED. Conclusions The parent perspective gives important insights into the reasons for return visits to the pediatric ED. Conclusions from this study will help inform future quality improvement initiatives that direct health care resources to provide high value care to patients and families.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".