MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Access to Long‐Term Care: The True Cause of Hospital Congestion?

2011· article· en· W1512432123 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov decision processOrder (exchange)BusinessOperations managementScheduling (production processes)Operations researchComputer scienceMedical emergencyMedicineMarkov processEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much attention has been paid to lengthy wait times in emergency departments (EDs) and much research has sought to improve ED performance. However, ED congestion is often caused by the inability to move patients into the wards while the wards in turn are often congested primarily due to patients waiting for a bed in a long‐term care (LTC) facility. The scheduling of clients to LTC is a complex problem that is compounded by the variety of LTC beds (different facilities and room accommodations), the presence of client choice and the competing demands of the hospital and community populations. We present a Markov decision process (MDP) model that determines the required access in order for the census of patients waiting for LTC in the hospitals to remain below a given threshold. We further present a simulation model that incorporates both hospital and community demand for LTC in order to predict the impact of implementing the policy derived from the MDP on the community client wait times and to aid in capacity planning for the future. We test the MDP policy vs. current practice as well as against a number of other proposed policy changes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it