A National Survey of Caregiver Needs and Experiences When Attending the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite being a frequent entry point of care, it remains unknown if families' needs are being met across pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). Study objectives were to describe caregivers' perceived overall PED experience and needs and to what extent these needs were met. METHODS: This descriptive, cross-sectional survey with medical record review was conducted in 10 Canadian PEDs. Caregivers completed electronic surveys in the PED and within 7 days postvisit. The primary outcome was the degree to which caregivers' overall needs were met in the PED. RESULTS: A total of 2005 caregivers participated; mean age was 37.8 (standard deviation 7.7) years and 74.3% (1462/1969) were mothers. Mean child age was 5.9 (standard deviation 5.1) years; 51.9% (1040/2003) were male. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] length of stay was 3.9 (2.6-6.1) hours. A total of 22.1% (322/1454) of caregivers reported that their overall needs were not adequately met (Likert scale 1-3/5). The top unmet needs during a PED visit were prompt medical care [20.3% (194/955)], access to practical items [16.8% (160/955)], and effective communication surrounding care [8.7% (83/955)]. Caregiver needs being met were associated with their child's needs being met [odds ratio (OR) 21.2 (13.1-34.2)], child's pain being well managed [OR 3.7 (2.4-5.6)], and satisfaction with overall length of stay [OR 2.6 (1.8-3.8)]. CONCLUSIONS: Almost one fourth of caregivers report their overall needs were not fully met. Improving the quality of PED experience through better communication (ie, wait time delays, medical updates) and earlier pain care initiation may improve family experiences while policymakers work nationally to address lengthy wait times.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".