Family caregivers’ emotional and communication needs in Canadian pediatric emergency departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the extent to which caregivers' emotional and communication needs were met during pediatric emergency department (PED) visits. Secondary objectives included describing the association of caregiver emotional needs, satisfaction with care, and comfort in caring for their child's illness at the time of discharge with demographic characteristics, caregiver experiences, and ED visit details. STUDY DESIGN: Electronic surveys with medical record review were deployed at ten Canadian PEDs from October 2018 -March 2020. A convenience sample of families with children <18 years presenting to a PED were enrolled, for one week every three months, for one year per site. Caregivers completed one in-PED survey and a follow-up survey, up to seven days post-visit. RESULTS: This study recruited 2005 caregivers who self-identified as mothers (74.3%, 1462/1969); mean age was 37.8 years (SD 7.7). 71.7% (1081/1507) of caregivers felt their emotional needs were met. 86.4% (1293/1496) identified communication with the doctor as good/very good and 83.4% (1249/1498) with their child's nurse. Caregiver involvement in their child's care was reported as good/very good 85.6% (1271/1485) of the time. 81.8% (1074/1313) of caregivers felt comfortable in caring for their child at home at the time of discharge. Lower caregiver anxiety scores, caregiver involvement in their child's care, satisfactory updates, and having questions adequately addressed positively impacted caregiver emotional needs and increased caregiver comfort in caring for their child's illness at home. CONCLUSION: Approximately 30% of caregivers presenting to PEDs have unmet emotional needs, over 15% had unmet communication needs, and 15% felt inadequately involved in their child's care. Family caregiver involvement in care and good communication from PED staff are key elements in improving overall patient experience and satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".