P016: Utilization and outcomes of children presenting to an emergency department by ambulance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Children account for a low proportion of paramedic transports. Evidence suggests that many pediatric transports are of low acuity, but there are few studies comparing these patients to those that self-present to the ED. Our primary objective was to determine if illness severity was associated with presentation by ambulance among pediatric patients. Methods: We undertook a single centre, retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care pediatric centre. All patients presenting to the ED in 2015 by any route other than air ambulance were eligible. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the route of presentation – ambulance or self-presentation. The primary outcome was disposition decision; the secondary outcome was CTAS level. To determine whether patient discharge disposition or CTAS was associated with method of arrival, we conducted generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for correlation within patients with multiple ED visits. Results: Of the 69,092 visits, 69,034 were eligible and analyzed. Of those, 4478 arrived by ambulance, while 64,556 self-presented. Those arriving by ambulance had a median age of 10 years [IQR: 2-5 years] vs. 4 years [IQR: 1.75-10 years] in the self-presenting group, and were 52.6% male (vs. 52.8%). Two percent of the ambulance cohort were admitted to the ICU (vs. 0.2%), and 16.6% were admitted to the ward (vs. 5%). Patients presenting by ambulance had higher CTAS scores – 5.3% CTAS 1 (vs. 0.3%), 16.4% CTAS 2 (vs. 7.0% ), 61.2% CTAS 3 (vs. 45.8%), and 17.1% CTAS 4-5 (vs. 46.9%). The odds of arriving by ambulance were 10.2 x higher for patients admitted to the ICU (OR = 10.2, 95%CI: 7.9 to 13.3) vs. those discharged home. The odds of arriving by ambulance was 64.2 x (OR = 64.2, 95% CI: 48.6 to 84.7) higher for patients CTAS 1 patients vs. CTAS 5 patients. The top 3 complaints among ambulance patients were respiratory (22.7%), orthopedic (14.7%), and general/minor (10.3%). Among self-presenting patients, the top three were general/minor (22.5%), respiratory (18.0%), and gastrointestinal (15.7%). Conclusion: Children presenting to the ED via ambulance are at higher risk for admission to the ward and critical care unit. It is important that EMS staff responsible for transporting children be well trained in managing critically ill children. Given the low proportion of pediatric transports, consideration must be given to how best to train EMS services in managing these children.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».