Is the emergency department an appropriate substitute for primary care for persons with traumatic spinal cord injury?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort with linkage of administrative data sets. OBJECTIVES: To describe the patterns (for example, number of visits by year post-injury) and characteristics of the emergency department (ED) visits (for example, acuity level, timing of visits, reasons for visits) made by persons with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) over a 6-year period following injury. SETTINGS: Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Rates of ED utilization and reasons for ED visits were calculated between the fiscal years 2003-2009. Reasons for visits were categorized by acuity level: potentially preventable visits were defined as visits related to ambulatory sensitive conditions; low acuity and high acuity visits were defined by the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale. RESULTS: The total number of ED visits for the 6-year period is 4403 (n=1217). Of these visits, 752 (17%) were classified as potentially preventable, 1443 (33%) as low acuity and 2208 (50%) as high acuity. The majority of patients, regardless of acuity level, did not see a primary care practitioner on the day of the ED visit and most visits occurred during the weekday (Mon-Fri 0700-1659 hours). ED use was highest in the first year but remained high over the subsequent years. For potentially preventable visits, the majority of visits were related to urinary tract infections (n=385 visits, 51.2%), followed by pneumonia (n=91, 12.1%). CONCLUSION: Given the high rates of ED use for low acuity and potentially preventable conditions, these results suggest that the ED is being used as an inappropriate substitute for primary care for individuals with TSCI 50% of the time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".