Emergency pediatric patients and use of the pediatric assessment triangle tool (PAT): a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a scoping review of the evidence for the use of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle (PAT) tool in emergency pediatric patients, in hospital and prehospital settings. We focused on the psychometric properties of the PAT, the reported impact, the setting and circumstances for tool implementation in clinical practice, and the evidence on teaching the PAT. METHODS: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and registered the review protocol. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed Central, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Scopus, CINAHL, Grey literature report, Lens.org, and the web pages of selected emergency pediatrics organizations in August 2022. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from eligible articles. RESULTS: Fifty-five publications were included. The evidence suggests that the PAT is a valid tool for prioritizing emergency pediatric patients, guiding the selection of interventions to be undertaken, and determining the level of care needed for the patient in both hospital and prehospital settings. The PAT is reported to be fast, practical, and useful potentially impacting overcrowded and understaff emergency services. Results highlighted the importance of instruction prior using the tool. The PAT is included in several curricula and textbooks about emergency pediatric care. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review suggests there is a growing volume of evidence on the use of the PAT to assess pediatric emergency patients, some of which might be amenable to a systematic review. Our review identified research gaps that may guide the planning of future research projects. Further research is warranted on the psychometric properties of the PAT to provide evidence on the tool's quality and usefulness. The simplicity and accuracy of the tool should be considered in addressing the current healthcare shortages and overcrowding in emergency services. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework; 2022. https://osf.io/vkd5h/.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".