Healthcare Providers and Parents Highlight Challenges of Pediatric Hand Fracture Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric hand fractures are common, and many are referred to hand surgeons despite less than 10% of referrals requiring surgical intervention. We explored healthcare provider and parent perspectives to inform a new care pathway. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using virtual focus groups. Emergency physicians, hand therapists, plastic surgeons, and parents of children treated for hand fractures were asked to discuss their experiences with existing care for pediatric hand fractures, and perceptions surrounding the implementation of a new care pathway. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis with an inductive approach. Results: Four focus groups included 24 participants: 18 healthcare providers and six parents. Four themes were identified: educating parents throughout the hand fracture journey, streamlining the referral process for simple hand fractures, identifying the most appropriate care provider for simple hand fractures, and maintaining strong multidisciplinary connections to facilitate care. Participants described gaps in the current care, including a need to better inform parents, and elucidated the motivations behind emergency medicine physicians' existing referral practices. Participants also generally agreed on the need for more efficient management of simple hand fractures that do not require surgical care. Healthcare providers believed the strong preexisting relationship between surgeons and hand therapists would facilitate the changes brought forward by the new care pathway. Conclusion: These findings highlighted shortcomings of existing care for pediatric hand fractures and will inform the co-development and implementation of a new care pathway to enable more efficient management while preserving good patient outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".