MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Who Are the Children Leaving the Emergency Department Without Being Seen by a Physician?

2011· article· en· W1563950786 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathalie Gaucher, Benoît Bailey, Jocelyn Gravel

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentLogistic regressionConfidence intervalTriageOdds ratioEmergency medicineReferralRetrospective cohort studyUnivariate analysisPediatricsFamily medicineMultivariate analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207