Patient-centered care in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-ethnographic synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care (PCC) is an emerging priority in many healthcare settings but lacks clarity in the emergency department (ED). It is of interest to know what PCC practices are most important to patients to better their experience. The objective of this study was to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of PCC in the ED. METHODS: We used stakeholder and patient engagement to consult with clinicians, subject-matter experts, patient partners, and community organizations to determine patient needs. We examined all articles in the ED context with PCC as the intervention. Two independent reviewers screened 3136 articles and 13 were included. A meta-ethnographic analysis was conducted to determine common themes of PCC. RESULTS: Themes included emotional support, communication, education, involvement of patient/family in information sharing and decision making, comfort of environment, respect and trust, continuity, and transition of care. Challenges in the ED reflected a lack of PCC. Moreover, implementation of PCC had many benefits including higher patient satisfaction with their care. Though there were commonalities of PCC components, there was no consistently used definition for PCC in the ED. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review support the evidence that PCC is of high value to the ED setting and should be standardized in practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.008 | 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".