Bounce-back visits in a rural emergency department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The rate of return visits at urban emergency departments (EDs) has been reported as approximately 3% within 72 hours of discharge. However, the current literature does not indicate the rate of return visits for rural EDs. The purpose of this study was to determine the bounce-back rate at a rural ED and to characterize the visits. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all visits to the ED of the South Huron Hospital between Apr. 1, 2007, and Mar. 31, 2008. Charts were reviewed for patient age, Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score, most common diagnoses and discharge disposition for each visit. RESULTS: Of the 9935 ED visits during this 12-month period, 289 (2.9%) were return visits within 72 hours. Median patient age was 46 years. The most common CTAS score for return visits was CTAS-IV (45.3%). The most common diagnosis was unspecified abdominal pain (4.0%). Most patients (88.6%) were treated in the ED and discharged home. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the bounce-back rate at a rural ED is similar to that at an urban ED. Most return visits are for low-acuity conditions, and unspecified abdominal pain represents the most common return diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".