Pediatric Emergency Department Return Visits Within 72 Hours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives In the United States, approximately 2.2% to 5% of children discharged from the emergency department (ED) return within 72 hours. There is limited literature examining caregivers' reasons for return to the ED, and none among Hispanics and Spanish-speaking caregivers. We sought to examine why caregivers of pediatric patients return to the ED within 72 hours of a prior ED visit, and assess roles of ethnicity and primary language. Methods A previously validated survey was prospectively administered to caregivers returning to the ED within 72 hours of discharge at a freestanding, tertiary care, children's hospital over a 7-month period. Reasons for return to the ED, previous ED discharge processes, and events since discharge were summarized according to Hispanic ethnicity, and English or Spanish language preference, and compared using the Fisher exact test. Results Among 499 caregiver surveys analyzed, caregivers returned mostly because of no symptom improvement (57.5%) and worsening condition (35.5%), with no statistically significant differences between Hispanic/non-Hispanic ethnicity, or English/Spanish preference. Most (85.2%) caregivers recalled reasons to return to the ED. Recall of expected duration until symptom improvement was significantly higher among Hispanic (60.4%) versus non-Hispanic (52.1%) (P = 0.003), and for Spanish- (68.9%) versus English-speaking (54.6%) (P = 0.04), caregivers. Conclusions Most caregivers returned to the ED because their child's condition was not better or had worsened. Ethnicity and language were not associated with variations in reasons for return. Non-Hispanic and English-speaking caregivers were less likely to recall being informed of time to improvement and may require additional intervention.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".