ArticlePloS one2025
Validating quality standards in Palestinian emergency departments: An e-Delphi survey approach.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To validate Palestine's previously derived emergency department quality standards (EDQS) using an e-Delphi survey. A two-round e-Delphi survey validated the EDQS, developed in an earlier study through a literature review and consensus-building among Palestinian emergency medicine and healthcare quality experts. The study purposively sampled 53 emergency department and healthcare quality experts with over 5 years of experience. A Likert scale was used to rate the standards on readability, clarity, and comprehensiveness in the initial round to reach consensus on the EDQS, with detailed feedback. An expanded expert group refined the shortlisted standards in the next phase. Lime Survey collected data anonymously. A set of 100 EDQS was validated through a two-round e-Delphi survey. In the initial round, 103 standards were presented, and consensus was achieved, resulting in a refined list of 100 standards. Among these, 39 standards fell under the clinical pathway domain, and 61 under the administrative pathway domain. In the second round, the validity of these standards was affirmed, with 96.4% consensus for clinical standards and 97.3% for administrative standards. Additionally, seven subdomains of EDQS were associated with the clinical pathway domain: triage, treatment, transportation, medication safety, patient flow, and medical diagnostic services, and nine subdomains were linked to the administration pathway domain: documentation, information management systems, access-location, design, leadership, management, workforce staffing, training, equipment, supplies, capacity-resuscitation rooms, resources for a safe working environment, performance indicators, and patient safety-infection prevention and control programs. The study validated context emergency department quality standards in Palestine, with over 97% consensus indicating a commitment to quality care. Experts suggest further research on implementation feasibility. Validated standards can aid healthcare leaders in resource allocation, staff training, and enhancing patient care, potentially leading to significant improvements in emergency healthcare in Palestine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.