MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106205532 · doi:10.1136/emermed-2015-204913

Patient characteristics associated with longer emergency department stay: a rapid review

2015· review· en· W2106205532 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

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of ManitobaGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentMedical emergencyEmergency medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prolonged emergency department (ED) stays make a disproportionate contribution to ED overcrowding, but the factors associated with longer stays have not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To identify the patient characteristics associated with ED length of stay (LOS) and ascertain whether a predictive model existed. METHODS: This rapid systematic review included published, English-language studies that assessed at least one patient-level predictor of ED LOS (defined as a continuous or dichotomous variable) in an adult or mixed adult/paediatric population within an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development country. Findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We identified 35 relevant studies; most included multiple predictors, but none developed a predictive model. The factors most commonly associated with long ED LOS were need for admission (10 of 10 studies) and older age (which may be a proxy for age-related differences in health condition and severity; 9 of 10), receipt of diagnostic tests or consults (8 of 8) and ambulance arrival (4 of 5). Acuity often showed a bell-shaped relationship with LOS (ie, patients with moderate acuity stayed longest). LIMITATIONS: Methodological choices made in the interests of rapidity limited the review's comprehensiveness and depth. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a sizeable body of literature, the available information is insufficiently precise to inform clinical or service-planning decisions; there is a need for a predictive model, including specific patient complaints. Deeper understanding of the determinants of ED LOS could help to identify patients and/or populations who require special intervention or resources to prevent a protracted stay.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.292 · 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