A Geriatric Emergency Service for Acutely Ill Elderly Patients: Pattern of Use and Comparison with a Conventional Emergency Department in Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current disease-oriented, episodic model of emergency care does not adequately address the complex needs of older adults presenting to emergency departments (EDs). Dedicated ED facilities with a specific organization (e.g., geriatric EDs (GEDs)) have been advocated. One of the few GED experiences in the world is described and its outcomes compared with those of a conventional ED (CED). In a secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort of 200 acutely ill elderly patients presenting to two urban EDs in Ancona, Italy, identifiers and triage, clinical, and social data were collected and the following outcomes considered: early (30-day) and late (6-month) ED revisit, frequent ED return, hospital admission, and functional decline. Death, functional decline, any ED revisit and any hospital admission were also considered as a composite outcome. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Overall, GED patients were older and frailer than CED patients. The two EDs did not differ in terms of early, late, or frequent ED return or in 6-month hospital admission or functional decline. The mortality rate was slightly but significantly lower in the GED patients (hazard ratio=0.47, 95% CI=0.22-0.99, P=.047). The data suggest noninferiority and, indirectly, a slight superiority for the GED system in the acute care of elderly people, supporting the hypothesis that ED facilities specially designed for older adults may provide better care.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".