MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114702111 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2007.19312

Frequency, Determinants and Impact of Overcrowding in Emergency Departments in Canada: A National Survey

2007· article· en· W2114702111 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth Bond, Maria B. Ospina, Sandra Blitz, Marc Afilalo, Sam Campbell, Michael J. Bullard, Grant Innes, Brian R. Holroyd, Gil Curry, Michael J. Schull, Brian H. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvercrowdingEmergency departmentMedicinePsychological interventionEmergency medicineFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several reports have documented the prevalence and severity of emergency department (ED) overcrowding at specific hospitals or cities in Canada; however, no study has examined the issue at a national level. A 54-item, self-administered, postal and web-based questionnaire was distributed to 243 ED directors in Canada to collect data on the frequency, impact and factors associated with ED overcrowding. The survey was completed by 158 (65% response rate) ED directors, 62% of whom reported overcrowding as a major or severe problem during the past year. Directors attributed overcrowding to a variety of issues including a lack of admitting beds (85%), lack of acute care beds (74%) and the increased length of stay of admitted patients in the ED (63%). They perceived ED overcrowding to have a major impact on increasing stress among nurses (82%), ED wait times (79%) and the boarding of admitted patients in the ED while waiting for beds (67%). Overcrowding is not limited to large urban centres; nor is it limited to academic and teaching hospitals. The perspective of ED directors reinforces the need for further examination of effective policies and interventions to reduce ED overcrowding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations189
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207