Do Outcomes for Patients With Heart Failure Vary by Emergency Department Volume?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common Emergency Department (ED) presentation but whether ED volume influences patient outcomes is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort of all adults presenting to 93 EDs between 1999 and 2009 with a most responsible diagnosis of heart failure (n=44 925 ED visits; mean age, 76.4 years). Cases seen in low-volume EDs had less comorbidities and were less likely to be hospitalized (54.5%) than those seen in medium (61.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.16, [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.10-1.23]) or high-volume EDs (73.6%; aOR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.83-2.07]). Of patients treated and released, low-volume ED cases exhibited higher risk of death/hospitalization/ED visit in the subsequent 7 (22.0%) and 30 days (44.9%) than medium (16.3%; aOR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.90], and 35.3%; aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.73-0.86]) or high-volume ED cases (13.0%; aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61-0.78], and 30.2%; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61-0.74]). Of patients hospitalized at the time of their index ED visit, low-volume ED cases exhibited a higher risk of 30-day death/all-cause readmission (24.3%) than those seen in medium (21.9%; aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.76-0.91]) or high-volume EDs (18.1%; aOR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: Low-volume EDs were more likely to discharge patients with heart failure home, but low-volume ED cases exhibited worse outcomes (driven largely by readmissions or repeat ED visits). Interventions to improve management of acute heart failure are required at low-volume sites.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it