Length of stay and hospital costs among patients admitted to hospital by family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare length of stay and total hospital costs among patients admitted to hospital under the care of family physicians who were their usual health care providers in the community (group A) and patients admitted to the same inpatient service under the care of family physicians who were not their usual health care providers (group B). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: A large urban hospital in Vancouver, BC. PARTICIPANTS: All adult admissions to the family practice inpatient service between April 1, 2006, and June 30, 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratio of length of stay to expected length of stay and total hospital costs per resource intensity weight unit. Multivariate linear regression was performed to determine the effect of admitting group (group A vs. group B) on the natural logarithm transformations of the outcomes. RESULTS: The median acute length of stay was 8.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 4.0 to 13.0 days) for group A admissions and 8.0 days (IQR 4.0 to 15.0 days) for group B admissions. The median (IQR) total hospital costs were $6498 ($4035 to $11,313) for group A admissions and $6798 ($4040 to $12,713) for group B admissions. Aftera djustment for patient characteristics, patients admitted to hospital under the care of their own family physicians did not significantly differ in terms of acute length of stay to expected length of stay ratio (percent change 0.6%, P = .942)or total hospital costs per resource intensity weight unit (percent change -2.0%, P = .722) compared with patients admitted under the care of other family physicians. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that having networks of family physicians involved in hospital care for patients is not less efficient than having family physicians provide care for their own patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".