Reduced Length of Stay in Hospital for Burn Patients Following a Change in Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze the financial implications of the implementation of new institutional practice guidelines including greater outpatient care and earlier operative intervention in a provincial burn center. A retrospective review was performed including all patients admitted to the Burn Unit with burns up to 20% TBSA between August 2005 and July 2009, including 2 years before and after the new guidelines were introduced. Daily costs for the burn unit were used to calculate this portion of cost. Length of stay (LOS) was based on actual data and representative clinical scenarios. Two hundred sixty-four patients were included. Mean LOS decreased from 10.3 to 3.9 (P < .01) and 21.0 to 13.3 (P > .05) for nonoperative burns 0 to 10% and 10 to 20% TBSA, respectively. Mean LOS for operative burns decreased from 16.6 to 12.9 and 32.3 to 29.8 days for 0 to 10% and 10 to 20% TBSA, respectively (P > .05). Burn patient management requires significant financial resources, and LOS has a large impact on cost. Given per diem rates of Can$1,663, scenario analysis shows potential cost savings of Can$19,956 per patient for operative and nonoperative burns <20% TBSA. With an average of 66 such patients treated each year, potential annual cost savings are Can$1.3 million. If outcomes are not compromised, earlier operative management and greater outpatient care can translate into significant cost savings. A prospective analysis capturing all costs and patient quality of life is required for further assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".