Meeting Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale benchmarks in a rural emergency department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) was implemented in 1999. The CTAS aims to more accurately define patients' needs for timely care and provide operating objectives to standardize this care. These objectives are not being met across Ontario. The purpose of this study was to determine if the CTAS benchmarks were being met at a rural emergency department (ED). METHODS: All ED visits to South Huron Hospital from Apr. 1, 2003, to Mar. 31, 2004, were reviewed. The percentage of visits receiving each CTAS category (I-V) was calculated. The median and 90th percentile time to physician initial assessment (PIA) were quantified by CTAS level. RESULTS: There was a total of 10 286 ED visits with 113 (1.1%) excluded because of missing triage codes. The percentage of visits assigned to CTAS categories I to V was 0.3, 2.4, 16.0, 42.7 and 38.5, respectively. Time to PIA in minutes was 1, 12, 24, 28 and 27 for CTAS I to V, respectively. CONCLUSION: The CTAS guidelines for PIA were met at this rural ED.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".