Perception and experience of patients in the emergency department in Edmonton, Canada: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient experiences in emergency departments (EDs) may be suboptimal due to increasing patient volumes and constrained hospital resources. This study explores patient experiences in EDs in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. METHODS: This study reports findings from a qualitative descriptive study conducted as part of the CARE project. Individuals experiencing socioeconomic disadvantages and having visited an ED in Edmonton within the past 12 months were recruited from two distinct settings-one hospital ED and four community organizations-using purposive sampling. Quantitative data from closed-ended questions were used to describe participant characteristics and healthcare access, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. The study adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. RESULTS: The study included 192 participants: 120 were interviewed in a hospital ED (46.7% women, 37.5% Indigenous, 60% unemployed), and 72 were interviewed in community-based organizations (59.7% women, 68.1% Indigenous, 94.4% unemployed). While most participants reported satisfactory experiences, others described unsatisfactory encounters. Positive experiences were linked to perceptions of health needs being met, while negative ones were associated with racism, accessibility barriers, long wait times, and poor communication. Quantitative data also revealed limited availability of primary care services and access to needed healthcare professionals. Suggestions for improvement included enhancing communication and expanding primary care capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Wait times, communication, service accessibility, availability, and discrimination are key challenges affecting ED experiences. Addressing these issues requires strategic investments in primary care, ED staffing, and culturally safe care practices to improve equity, responsiveness, and patient experience.
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".