Recommendation‐making in the emergency department: A qualitative study of how Canadian emergency physicians guide treatment decisions about resuscitation in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objective: Emergency physicians are frequently responsible for making time-sensitive decisions around the provision of life-sustaining treatment. These decisions can involve goals of care or code status discussion, which will often substantially alter a patient's care pathway. A central part of these conversations that has received relatively little attention are recommendations for care. By proposing a best course of action or treatment via a recommendation, a clinician can ensure that their patients receive care that is concordant with their values. The objective of this study is to explore emergency physicians' attitudes toward recommendations about resuscitation in critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: We recruited Canadian emergency physicians via multiple recruitment strategies to ensure maximum variation sampling. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted until thematic saturation occurred. Participants were asked about their perspectives and experiences with respect to recommendation-making in critically ill patients and to identify areas for improvement in this process in the ED. We used a qualitative descriptive approach and thematic analysis to identify themes around recommendation-making in the ED for critically ill patients. Results: Sixteen emergency physicians agreed to participate. We identified four themes and multiple subthemes. Major themes included identification of the roles and responsibilities of the emergency physician (EP) with respect to making a recommendation, the logistics or process of making a recommendation, barriers to making a recommendation, and how to improve recommendation-making and goals of care conversations in the ED. Conclusion: Emergency physicians provided a range of perspectives on the role of recommendation-making in critically ill patients in the ED. Several barriers to the inclusion of a recommendation were identified and many physicians provided ideas on how to improve goals of care conversations, the recommendation-making process, and ensure that critically ill patients receive care that is concordant with their values.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".