Does direct transport to provincial burn centres improve outcomes? A spatial epidemiology of severe burn injury in British Columbia, 2001–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada and the United States, research has shown that injured patients initially treated at smaller emergency departments before transfer to larger regional facilities are more likely to require longer stays in hospital or suffer greater mortality. It remains unknown whether transport status is an independent predictor of adverse health events among persons requiring care from provincial burn centres. METHODS: We obtained case records from the British Columbia Trauma Registry for adult patients (age ≥ 18 yr) referred or transported directly to the Vancouver General Hospital and Royal Jubilee Hospital burn centres between Jan. 1, 2001, and Mar. 31, 2006. Prehospital and in-transit deaths and deaths in other facilities were identified using the provincial Coroner Service database. Place of injury was identified through data linkage with census records. We performed bivariate analysis for continuous and discrete variables. Relative risk (RR) of prehospital and in-hospital mortality and hospital stay by transport status were analyzed using a Poisson regression model. RESULTS: After controlling for patient and injury characteristics, indirect referral did not influence RR of in-facility death (RR 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54- 3.22) or hospital stay (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42). Rural populations experienced an increased risk of total mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.00-1.48). CONCLUSION: Transfer status is not a significant indicator of RR of death or hospital stay among patients who received care at primary care facilities before transport to regional burn centres. However, significant differences in prehospital mortality show that improvements in rural mortality can still be made.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".