Choose Well: Reducing ‘inappropriate’ emergency department attendances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study's aim was to design and implement a targeted Choose Well campaign to address educational needs in inappropriate attenders at emergency departments (ED) in North Wales; particularly those living in specific postcodes and those aged 15–29 years. The campaign's effectiveness in reducing the proportion of this type of attendance was evaluated using a before-and-after study design. The proportion of inappropriate attendances out of total ED attendances in North Wales was statistically significantly reduced (P < 0.005) by 11%. The study was also able to highlight a statistically significantly reduction in the proportion of inappropriate presentations by young people aged 15–29 (of total ED attendances by this group) by 13% (P = 0.0051). However, statistical analysis found that the proportion of inappropriate attendances from the ‘top 20’ postcodes was not significantly reduced (P = 0.4163). In summary, there is strong evidence that a targeted Choose Well campaign produced a reduction in the overall proportion of inappropriate attendances, as well as those in a specified target group.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".