MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103748332

Prevalence of information gaps in the emergency department and the effect on patient outcomes.

2003· article· en· W2103748332 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineMedical emergencyConfidence intervalEmergency medicineEmergency physicianMedical recordNursingInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Information gaps occur when previously collected information is unavailable to a physician who is currently treating a patient. In this study we measured the prevalence of physician-reported information gaps for patients presenting to an emergency department at a teaching hospital. METHODS: For 1002 visits to the emergency department made by 983 patients, we recorded all information gaps identified by the emergency physician immediately after the patient was assessed. When an information gap was present, the physician was asked to identify the required information, why it was required and how important it was to the patient's care. We reviewed the patient charts to measure severity of illness and to determine whether the patient was referred to the emergency department by a community physician. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine whether information gaps were associated with length of stay in the emergency department. RESULTS: At least 1 information gap was identified in 323 (32.2%) of the 1002 visits (95% confidence interval 29.4%-35.2%). Information gaps were associated with severity of illness, being significantly more common in patients who had serious chronic illnesses, those who arrived by ambulance, those who had visited the emergency department or had been in hospital recently, patients in monitored areas in the emergency department and older patients. Information gaps most commonly comprised medical history (58%) and laboratory test results (23.3%) and were felt to be essential to patient care in 47.8% of the cases. The presence of information gaps was not associated with admission to hospital. After adjusting for important confounders, including patient sex, previous hospital admissions, diagnosis and severity of illness, we found that stays in the emergency department were 1.2 hours longer on average for patients with an information gap than for those without one. INTERPRETATION: Information gaps were present in almost one-third of the visits to our emergency department. They were more common in sicker patients and were independently associated with a prolonged stay in the emergency department.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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