ArticleCJEM2025
Development of a scoring tool for emergency department note quality: a modified Delphi approach.
Article in CJEM, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEmergency department (ED) documentation is essential for patient care. Accepted standards are required to teach best practices; however, tools to assess ED note quality are deficient, either lacking validation or performing poorly. We sought to develop a tool for assessing ED note quality for lower acuity visits in patients 16 years of age or older.
methodsWe employed a modified Delphi approach with two rounds of electronic surveys. We invited 40 Canadian emergency physicians to serve as experts. In round one, we gathered feedback on dimensions (content elements, attributes, and scoring) relevant to ED note quality. Using these data, we derived a draft tool which was shared with the experts in round two, and then modified based on their feedback. Outcome data included survey response rates, and quantitative and qualitative feedback.
resultsResponse rates were 44% (n = 17) and 47% (n = 8) for the first and second rounds. Key perspectives from round one emphasized differences between broadly applicable ("universal") versus context-specific ("conditional") elements, the importance of certain attributes, and a binary scoring system. The authors drew on perspectives to develop a tool with eight universal and 16 conditional elements, four attributes, scored using a binary system. Feedback from the second round recommended minor changes, but demonstrated consensus on the tool's stated function.
conclusionWe developed the Tool for ED Note Quality. Limitations include a small sample size and a focus on physician perspectives. Next steps include generation of evidence for validity and refinement of the scoring system. Once validated, the tool may be used in assessing ED note quality for the purposes of medical education, quality improvement, and digital health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40249563What 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.