Who Are the Children Leaving the Emergency Department Without Being Seen by a Physician?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Waiting times to see a physician in emergency departments (EDs) are growing, and a greater number of patients are leaving the ED without being seen by a physician (LWBS). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the characteristics of the children who left a pediatric ED without being seen by a physician. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study was performed using the computerized database of a tertiary care pediatric ED. All children aged less than 19 years old presenting to the ED between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, were included. Cases were all triaged children who LWBS. Controls were all triaged children seen by a physician. Independent variables concerning the patient, the illness, and the period of consultation were assessed. A stepwise logistic regression model was constructed using significant variables identified through univariate analysis to select characteristics most predictive of patients who LWBS. The minimum sample size needed to evaluate 10 risk factors is 100 patients who LWBS. We estimated that evaluating all patients visiting the ED for 1 year would minimize seasonal variation and generate more than 10,000 patients who LWBS. RESULTS: During the study period, 60,525 patients presented to the ED. A total of 10,037 (16.6%) patients were triaged, but LWBS. On multiple logistic regression, referral by a physician (odds ratio [OR] = 0.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08 to 0.12); summer or fall consultation (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.45; and OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.45, respectively, compared to winter); and higher acuity triage level were associated with a lower risk of patients who LWBS. Evening arrivals (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.2, compared to night), ages between 3 months and 11 years (OR varying from 1.3 to 1.8 compared to more than 11 years of age), and living close to the hospital (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.3) were risk factors for LWBS. The most important predictor of LWBS was triage level with rates of 0, 0, 1.5, 23, and 49% for Levels 1 to 5 according to the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that children who LWBS have a lower triage acuity, are less often referred by a physician, and are largely in the 3-month to 11-year-old age range. Environmental factors, such as the timing of the consultation and the proximity of patients' homes, are also associated with LWBS.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".