ArticleCJEM2026
Bridging the gap: A qualitative analysis of divergent patient and provider experiences in the emergency department.
Article in CJEM, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEmergency departments (EDs) are critical access points within strained health systems. This study examined how patients and providers interpret shared ED encounters to identify strategies to improve patient experience and provider well-being.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative analysis of narratives from a mixed-methods study. Patients ≥ 16 years and ED physicians/nurses provided short narratives about their ED encounter and self-interpreted their experiences. In this article, qualitative data, analyzed using interpretive description, explored how perspectives differed.
resultsWe reviewed 229 matched patient-provider pairs. Most pairs offered similar assessments; however, 21 were divergent and were the focus of this analysis. Three themes characterized these divergences: (1) the ethical and emotional toll of systemic dysfunction-clinicians described perceived personal inadequacy and perceived humiliation and dignity-eroding care for patients; (2) discrepant measures of 'success' and quality-providers prioritized clinical pathway completion and risk mitigation, whereas patients judged quality based on relationships and communication; and (3) less visible burdens and unmet needs-environmental stressors on providers were rarely noted by patients, while patients emphasized unattended basic needs (food, warmth, pain control) even when investigations and referrals were completed.
conclusionOverall concordance between patients and providers was high, but divergent cases revealed distinct benchmarks of "good care." Future interventions could consider pairing organizational improvements intended to improve workflow and working conditions (including staffing to demand, protected assessment time, and streamlined consults) with a standardized fundamentals bundle that emphasizes clear communication and attention to patient comfort and dignity in ED care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645783What 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.