Reducing Inappropriate Hospital Use on a General Pediatric Inpatient Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies have documented high rates of inappropriate hospital use in children. We assessed the effectiveness of an audit-and-feedback intervention at reducing inappropriate hospital days on a general pediatric inpatient unit. METHODS: A prospective observational study, using a before-and-after design, was conducted at a tertiary care pediatric hospital in Canada between March 2005 and August 2006. The appropriateness of all hospital days for all admissions was evaluated by a nurse trained in using a utilization review tool. This tool classifies hospital days as "qualified" or "nonqualified" on the basis of the nature of the inpatient services that are used. Reasons for nonqualified days were classified. The intervention consisted of (1) weekly feedback to attending physicians of which patients were nonqualified and (2) dissemination of summary reports to attending physicians. Comparisons were made between the preintervention (March 2005 to August 2005) and intervention (March 2006 to August 2006) phases. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a significantly lower risk of inappropriate hospital days. Of the 7246 hospital days in the 6-month intervention phase, 2413 (33%) were nonqualified versus 3859 (47%) of 8228 hospital days in the 6-month preintervention phase. A total of 7.35 hospital days would have to be reviewed, combined with weekly feedback, to prevent 1 nonqualified hospital day. The 48-hour readmission rate in the intervention phase and preintervention phase was 1.0% and 1.6%, respectively. The proportion of nonqualified days to total hospital days that were attributable to "finishing intravenous antibiotics," "awaiting tests," "providing nutrition," "observation only," "tapering treatment," and "teaching" decreased significantly, whereas the "lack of an alternate level of care" increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: An audit-and-feedback intervention directed at attending physicians was associated with a lower risk of inappropriate hospital days without an increase in the readmission rate. The utilization review tool also identified processes that impact on inappropriate hospital days.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".