How much do operational processes affect hospital inpatient discharge rates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to determine the effect of day of the week, holiday, team admission and rotation schedules, individual attending physicians and their length of coverage on daily team discharge rates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the General Internal Medicine (GIM) inpatient service at our institution for years 2005 and 2006, which included 5088 patients under GIM care. RESULTS: Weekend discharge rate was more than 50% lower compared with reference rates whereas Friday rates were 24% higher. Holiday Monday discharge rates were 65% lower than regular Mondays, with an increase in pre-holiday discharge rates. Teams that were on-call or that were on call the next day had 15% higher discharge rates compared with reference whereas teams that were post-call had 20% lower rates. Individual attending physicians and length of attending coverage contributed small variations in discharge rates. Resident scheduling was not a significant predictor of discharge rates. CONCLUSIONS: Day of the week and holidays followed by team organization and scheduling are significant predictors of daily variation in discharge rates. Introducing greater holiday and weekend capacity as well as reorganizing internal processes such as admitting and attending schedules may potentially optimize discharge rates.
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".