MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161040298 · doi:10.5430/jha.v4n2p1

The association between the transfer of emergency department admitted patients to inpatient hallways and outcomes of oncology patients

2015· article· en· W2161040298 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Charles Henry Lim, Matthew C. Cheung, Maureen Trudeau, Kevin Imrie, Ben De Mendonca, Simron Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentProspective cohort studyEmergency medicinePatient satisfactionInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: A protocol was implemented to ease Emergency Department (ED) crowding by moving suitable admitted patients into inpatient hallway beds (HALL) or off-service beds (OFF) when beds on an admitting service’s designated ward (ON) were not available. This study assessed the impact of hallway and off-service oncology admissions on ED patient flow, quality of care and patient satisfaction.Methods: Retrospective and prospective data were collected on patients admitted to the medical oncology service from Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2011. Data on clinician assessments and time performance measures were collected. Satisfaction surveys were prospectively administered to all patients. Results: Two hundred and ninty-seven patients (117 HALL, 90 OFF, 90 ON) were included in this study. There were no significant differences between groups for frequency of physician assessments, physical exam maneuvers at initial physician visit, time to complete vital signs or time to medication administration. The median (IQR) time spent admitted in the ED prior to departure from the ED was significantly longer for HALL patients (5.53 hrs [1.59-13.03 hrs]) compared to OFF patients (2.00 hrs [0.37-3.69 hrs]) and ON patients (2.18 hrs [0.15-5.57 hrs]) (p < .01). Similarly, the median (IQR) total ED length of stay was significantly longer for HALL patients (13.82 hrs [7.43-20.72 hrs]) compared to OFF patients (7.18 hrs [5.72-11.42 hrs]) and ON patients (9.34 hrs [5.43-14.06 hrs]) (p < .01). HALL patients gave significantly lower overall satisfaction scores with mean (SD) satisfaction scores for HALL, OFF and ON patients being 3.58 (1.20), 4.23 (0.58) and 4.29 (0.69) respectively (p < .01). Among HALL patients, 58% were not comfortable being transferred into the hallway and 4% discharged themselves against medical advice. Conclusions: The protocol for transferring ED admitted patients to inpatient hallway beds did not reduce ED length of stay for oncology patients. The timeliness and frequency of clinical assessments were not compromised; however, patient satisfaction was decreased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207