MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569687079 · doi:10.4103/0974-2700.86638

The provision of critical care in emergency departments at Canada

2011· article· en· W1569687079 on OpenAlex
RobertS Green, Jack McIntyre

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emergencies Trauma and Shock · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersChina Academy of Engineering PhysicsCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
KeywordsMedicineCritically illEmergency departmentEmergency medicineDemographicsIntensive care medicinePopulationResuscitationMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients are common in emergency medicine, and require expert care to maximize patient outcomes. However, little data is available on the provision of critical care in the ED. The goal of this study is to describe the management of critically ill patients in the ED via a survey of Canadian emergency physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of attending physician members of CAEP was conducted by email. The survey was developed by the authors and internal validity was established prior to survey deployment. Data on physician demographics, hospital resources, use of invasive procedures, vasopressor/inotropic medications, length of stay in the ED and patient responsibility were assessed. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 22.9%, with the majority of respondents possessing speciality training in EM (73.5%). Respondents indicated that critically ill patients were commonly managed in the ED, with 68.5% reporting >6 critically ill patients per month, and 12.4% indicating > 20 patients per month. Respondents indicated that the majority of critically ill patients remained in the ED for 1-4 hours (70%) after resuscitation, yet 18% remained in the ED for >5 hours. Patients with a "respiratory" etiology were the most common critically ill patient population reported, followed by "cardiovascular", "infectious" and "traumatic illness". Direct laryngoscopy was frequently performed (66.9%> 11 in the year prior to the survey) in the year prior to the survey, while other invasive procedures and vasopressor/inotropic medications were utilized less often. EM physicians were responsible for the management of critically ill patients in the ED, even after consultation to an inpatient service, and were often required to provided acute care to critically ill patients admitted to an ICU, yet remaining in the ED prior to transfer (20% reported > 50% of the time). CONCLUSION: Our survey demonstrates that critically ill patients are common in Canadian ED's, and that EMP's are often responsible to provide care for prolonged period of time. In addition, the use of invasive procedures other then direct laryngoscopy was variable. Further research is warranted to determine the impact of delayed transfer and ED physician management of critically ill patients in the ED.

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 score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.259 · 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