MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055055130 · doi:10.1071/ah14106

Multisite analysis of the timing and outcomes of unplanned transfers from subacute to acute care

2015· article· en· W2055055130 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Considine, Maryann Street, Mari Botti, Bev OʼConnell, Bridie Kent, Trisha Dunning

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDeakin University
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityAcute careEmergency medicineOdds ratioOddsRetrospective cohort studyLogistic regressionHealth carePediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The aim of the present study was to examine the timing and outcomes of patients requiring an unplanned transfer from subacute to acute care. Methods Subacute care in-patients requiring unplanned transfer to an acute care facility within four Victorian health services from 1 January to 31 December 2010 were included in the study. Data were collected using retrospective audit. The primary outcome was transfer within 24 h of subacute care admission. Results In all, 431 patients (median age 81 years) had unplanned transfers; of these, 37.8% had a limitation of medical treatment (LOMT) order. The median subacute care length of stay was 43 h: 29.0% of patients were transferred within 24 h and 83.5% were transferred within 72 h of subacute care admission. Predictors of transfer within 24 h were comorbidity weighting (odds ratio (OR) 1.1, P = 0.02) and LOMT order (OR 2.1, P < 0.01). Hospital admission occurred in 87.2% of patients and 15.4% died in hospital. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were comorbidity weighting (OR 1.2, P < 0.01) and the number of physiological abnormalities in the 24 h preceding transfer (OR 1.3, P < 0.01). Conclusions There is a high rate of unplanned transfers to acute care within 24 h of admission to subacute care. Unplanned transfers are associated with high hospital admission and in-hospital mortality rates. What is known about the topic? Subacute care is becoming a high acuity environment where many patients are at significant risk of clinical deterioration. Systems for recognising and responding to deteriorating patients are well developed in acute care, but still developing in subacute care. What does this paper add? This is the first Australian multisite study of clinical deterioration in patients situated in subacute care facilities. One-third of unplanned transfers occur within 24 h of admission to subacute care. Patients who require unplanned transfer from subacute to acute care have unexpectedly high hospital admission rates and high in-hospital mortality rates. The frequency and completeness of physiological monitoring preceding transfer was low. What are the implications for practitioners? Patients in subacute care require regular physiological assessment and early escalation of care if there are physiological abnormalities. Risk of clinical deterioration should be a factor in the decision to admit patients to subacute care after an acute illness or injury. There is a need to improve systems for recognising and responding to deteriorating patients in subacute care settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207