Surgical Specialty Consultation for Pediatric Facial Laceration Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe patterns of and indications for surgical specialty consultation for facial laceration repair in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). METHODS: We performed a multicenter survey of PED leadership throughout the United States and Canada evaluating the practice patterns of surgical specialty consultation for patients presenting for facial lacerations requiring repair. We measured demographics of PEDs, factors influencing the decision to obtain a surgical specialty consultation, and the presence and components of consultation guidelines. Factors related to consultation were ranked on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = Not at all important, 5 = Extremely important). We evaluated relationships between reported rates of surgical specialty consultation and PED region, annual PED volume, and reported factors associated with PED consultation. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 67/124 (54%) queried PEDs. The median self-reported rate of surgical specialty consultation for facial lacerations was 10% and ranged from 1% to 70%, with resident physicians performing the repair 71% of the time a subspecialist was consulted. There was regional variability in specialty consultation, with the highest and lowest rate in the Midwest and Canada, respectively ( P = 0.03). The top 4 influential factors prompting consultation with the highest percentage of responses of "Extremely Important" or "Very Important" were: discretion of the physician caring for the patient (95%), parental preference (39%), limited PED resources (32%), and patient requires sedation (32%). Surgical specialty consult guidelines were used in only 6% of PEDs with consensus that depth necessitating more than 2-layer repair or involvement of critical structures should prompt consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical specialty usage in the management of patients who present with facial lacerations to PEDs has significant variation related to patient, provider, and department-level factors that influence the decision to consult. Lack of consult guidelines represent a potential opportunity to standardize care delivery to this common presentation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".