Home Care and Emergency Medicine A Pilot Project to Discharge Patients Safely from the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe in detail the implementation of an acute care home care program (quick response program; QRP) for the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A prospective observational study with key process and outcome indicators, including number of referrals, time to initiate service, type of home care provided, number of return patients to the ED, and outcome for all patients, defined at the beginning of the project. Patients are identified for the QRP and services are in place within four hours of patient discharge. RESULTS: Of 177 eligible patients, 121 were entered into the program. Sixty-eight percent were more than 65 years old, and 54% lived alone. All patients met the time target of services in place within four hours of discharge from the ED. Patient satisfaction was high as measured by an independent survey instrument. Fifty percent of the patients required no further service after the QRP, but 20% were admitted to hospital within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: A QRP can be successfully implemented in the ED to discharge patients home, most of whom would have been admitted to hospital.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".