Parents may know best! A pilot study suggests that children of parents who do not have contact with health care professionals before attending the emergency department are triaged as more urgent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of prehospital health care contact on triage acuity. METHODS: One hundred fifteen families were assigned Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale scores by a paediatric emergency department (ED) physician. Scores of children who had or had not seen a health care professional before attending the ED were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-two of 72 (86.1%) children without previous health care professional contact, and 30 of 43 (69.8%) children with contact were triaged as 'urgent' (P=0.034). Parents with first aid knowledge (29 of 43 [67.4%]) were more likely to have had contact with a health care professional before visiting the ED compared with those with no such knowledge (27 of 72 [37.5%]; P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Patients without previous health care professional contact were assigned more acute triage categories. Health care professionals may advise families to visit the ED more frequently than necessary, which could contribute to ED congestion. Incorporating a parental estimate of the degree of urgency of their child's complaint into triage procedures represents an intriguing and challenging possibility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".