Unscheduled Return Visits to the Pediatric Emergency Department-One-Year Experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients returning to the emergency department (ED) within 72 hours of their visit may contribute to crowding and might indicate failure to give a proper assessment, treatment, or follow-up instructions. The aim of this study was to describe the rate of return visits in a tertiary care pediatric ED (PED) and find characteristics of children who return to the ED. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all records of patients visiting our PED in Toronto during 2003. We collected demographic data, time of visit(s), and acuity. We excluded patients who left without being seen, left against medical advice, or were admitted to the hospital. We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses to determine odds ratio of variables associated with returning. RESULTS: Of 37,725 eligible children, 1990(5.2%) returned within 72 hours. One hundred fifty-six returned for a third visit, and 10 returned for a fourth visit. A quarter of the children who returned were younger than 1 year, and the younger the child, the higher the likelihood of returning; the higher the acuity of the first (index) visit, the higher the likelihood that a patient will return. Patients coming during the busiest hours, between 8 pm and midnight, were more likely to return. We found no significant seasonal differences in univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Five percent of our PED visits are return visits of children seen in the 72 hours before the visit. Younger children, with high acuity who come to the ED in the late evening hours, are most likely to return to the ED.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it