Inpatient Growth and Resource Use in 28 Children's Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare inpatient resource use trends for healthy children and children with chronic health conditions of varying degrees of medical complexity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Twenty-eight US children's hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 1 526 051 unique patients hospitalized from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2009, who were assigned to 1 of 5 chronic condition groups using 3M's Clinical Risk Group software. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in the number of patients, hospitalizations, hospital days, and charges analyzed with linear regression. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2009, hospitals experienced a greater increase in the number of children hospitalized with vs without a chronic condition (19.2% vs 13.7% cumulative increase, P < .001). The greatest cumulative increase (32.5%) was attributable to children with a significant chronic condition affecting 2 or more body systems, who accounted for 19.2% (n = 63 203) of patients, 27.2% (n = 111 685) of hospital discharges, 48.9% (n = 1.1 million) of hospital days, and 53.2% ($9.2 billion) of hospital charges in 2009. These children had a higher percentage of Medicaid use (56.5% vs 49.7%; P < .001) compared with children without a chronic condition. Cerebral palsy (9179 [14.6%]) and asthma (13 708 [21.8%]) were the most common primary diagnosis and comorbidity, respectively, observed among these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a chronic condition increasingly used more resources in a group of children's hospitals than patients without a chronic condition. The greatest growth was observed in hospitalized children with chronic conditions affecting 2 or more body systems. Children's hospitals must ensure that their inpatient care systems and payment structures are equipped to meet the protean needs of this important population of children.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".