MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of interhospital transfer on resource utilization and outcomes at a tertiary care referral center*

2007· article· en· W2013713933 on OpenAlexaff
Ellie Golestanian, Jesse Scruggs, Ronald E. Gangnon, Rosa Mak, Kenneth E. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsRPM International (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitEmergency medicineReferralAPACHE IITertiary referral hospitalPsychological interventionAcute careObservational studyCohortHealth careRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Mortality and length of stay are two outcome variables commonly used as benchmarks in rating the performance of medical centers. Acceptance of transfer patients has been shown to affect both outcomes and the costs of health care. Our objective was to compare observed and predicted lengths of stay, observed and predicted mortality, and resource consumption between patients directly admitted and those transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a large academic medical center. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Mixed medical/surgical ICU of a university hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 4,569 consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary care ICU from April 1, 1997, to March 30, 2000. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score, actual and predicted ICU and hospital lengths of stay, actual and predicted ICU and hospital mortality, and costs per admission. MAIN RESULTS: Crude comparison of directly admitted and transfer patients revealed that transfer patients had significantly higher APACHE III scores (mean, 60.5 vs. 49.7, p < .001), ICU mortality (14% vs. 8%, p < .001), and hospital mortality (22% vs. 14%, p < .001). Transfer patients also had longer ICU lengths of stay (mean, 6.0 vs. 3.8 days, p < .001) and hospital lengths of stay (mean, 20 vs. 15.9 days, p < .001). Stratified by disease severity using the APACHE III model, there was no difference in either ICU or hospital mortality between the two populations. However, in the transfer group with the lowest predicted mortality of 0-20%, ICU and hospital lengths of stay were significantly higher. In crude cost analysis, transfer patients' costs were $9,600 higher per ICU admission compared with nontransfer patients (95% confidence interval, $6,000-$13,400). Risk stratification revealed that the higher per-patient cost was entirely confined to the transfer patients with the lowest predicted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients transferred to a tertiary care ICU are generally more severely ill and consume more resources. However, they have similar adjusted mortality outcomes when compared with directly admitted patients. The difference in resource consumption is mainly attributable to the group of patients in the lowest predicted risk bracket.

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)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations142
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207