MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18406: Are Medical Emergency Team Call Event Rates to the Radiology Department Greater Than to the General Hospital Wards?

2011· article· en· W179818755 on OpenAlexaff
Lora K. Ott, Michael R. Pinsky, Leslie A. Hoffman, Dianxu Ren, Sean P. Clarke, Sunday Clark, Marilyn Hravnak

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentMedical emergencyEmergency medicineEvent (particle physics)Rapid response teamFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : To establish if hospital in-patients are at greater risk for requiring Medical Emergency Team (MET) assistance while in the Radiology Department, we determined the event rates of MET calls to the Radiology department (MET-RD) and the general hospital wards (MET-W). Design/Participants : Retrospective review of in-patients experiencing a MET call in 2009. Setting : Tertiary care hospital with a well-established MET system admitting 32,000 patients and performing 160,000 in-patient Radiology (RD) procedures per year. Measurements : The number of MET-RD was adjusted for length of stay (LOS) to determine the number of MET-RD/hour/1000 RD admissions. The number of MET-W was adjusted for LOS to determine the number of MET-W/hour/1000 hospital admissions. Main Results : The MET-RD event rate was slightly higher than MET-W (0.42 v. 0.31 events/hour/1000 hospital admissions) but not statistically different (p=0.73). The overall average LOS in the RD (LOS-RD) was 58 min. General x-ray (XR) comprised 63% of RD admissions but only 11% of MET-RD (LOS 40 min, XR event rate 0.09). Event rates and LOS in the radiology specialty modality areas revealed that 38% of MET-RDs occurred in computed tomography (CT) (average CT LOS 47 min) and an event rate (0.94) over twice the RD average. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represented only 5% of the RD admissions but had 27% of MET-RD (average MRI LOS-RD 90 minutes) and an event rate (1.43) that was 3.5 times higher than the RD average. The longest LOS-RD was in Nuclear medicine (NM; 111 minutes) and represented only 1% of RD admissions but 5% of MET-RD, with an NM event rate (1.34) that was 3.2 times higher than the RD average. Analysis of event rates for the combined RD specialty modalities (minus XR) revealed an average RD specialty modality event rate that was significantly higher when compared to MET-W (0.76 v. 0.31, p=.007). Conclusions : Although overall MET-RD event rates were similar to MET-W, they were unevenly distributed across patients receiving CT, MRI and NM studies. The combined event rate in the RD specialty modalities suggest increased MET risk for patients in these areas, which may have implications for RD surveillance practices.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→