Societal Costs of Inappropriate Emergency Department Thoracotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) thoracotomy can be lifesaving. It can also lead to resource waste and exposure to blood-borne infections. We investigated the frequency with which ED thoracotomy was performed for inappropriate indications and the resulting societal costs. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study examined all trauma patients admitted directly from the scene of injury from 1992 to 2009 who underwent ED thoracotomy. The main outcomes included inappropriate ED thoracotomy. Secondary outcomes included resource use and societal costs for performing ED thoracotomy for improper indications. Specifically, we analyzed for operating room use, blood transfusions, ICU and hospital stay, needlestick injuries, survivor rate, and neurological outcomes in this group. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three patients underwent ED thoracotomy during the study period. Of those, 63 (51%) were considered inappropriate. In this group, we observed no survivors, none became organ donors, 3 cases of needlestick injuries to health care providers occurred, and 335 U of blood products were used in their care. Also, 4 patients of 63 survived to the operating room and required a total of 6 separate operating room visits. Three of these patients had an ICU stay of 1 day and 1 died on day 5. CONCLUSIONS: ED thoracotomy should be reserved for potentially salvageable patients, but discouraged for other indications. From the societal point of view, inappropriate use of the procedure resulted in substantial costs and waste of resources, exposure of health care providers to possible blood-borne infections, and offered no survival benefit.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".