Evaluating the Effect of Clinical Decision Units on Patient Flow in Seven Canadian Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of emergency department (ED) clinical decision units (CDUs) on overall ED patient flow in a pilot project funded in 2008 by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of unscheduled ED visits at seven CDU pilot and nine control sites was conducted using administrative data. The authors examined trends in CDU utilization and compared outcomes between pilot-CDU and control sites 1 year prior to implementation, with the first 18 months of CDU operation. Sites that were unsuccessful in their applications for CDU program funding served as controls. Outcomes included ED length of stay (LOS), admission rates, and ED revisit rates. RESULTS: At CDU sites, roughly 4% of ED patients were admitted to CDUs. The presence of a pilot-CDU was independently associated with a small reduction in ED LOS for all low-acuity patients (-0.14 hour, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.22 to -0.07) and nonadmitted patients (-0.11 hour, 95% CI=-0.16 to -0.07). A small independent effect on absolute hospital admission rate for all high-acuity patients (-0.8%, 95% CI=-1.5% to -0.03%) and moderate-acuity patients (-0.6%, 95% CI=-1.1% to -0.2%) was also observed. Pilot-CDUs were not associated with changes in ED revisit rates. CONCLUSIONS: With only 4% of ED patients admitted to CDUs, the potential for efficiency gains in these EDs was limited. Nonetheless, these findings suggest small improvements in the operation of the ED through CDU implementation. Although marginal, the observed effects of CDU operation were in the desired direction of reduced ED LOS, reduced admission rate, and no increase in ED revisit rate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".