Management of acute exacerbation of COPD in rural Alberta emergency departments.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common presentation to emergency departments (EDs); however, limited information exists about the management of this condition in nonurban locations. We sought to examine the diagnostic and treatment approaches for acute exacerbation of COPD in 3 rural EDs, and to determine levels of adherence to recommendations from the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) clinical practice guideline. METHODS: We conducted retrospective chart reviews to explore the management of patients who presented to 3 rural EDs for acute exacerbation of COPD in 2011. Data are reported as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) and proportions. RESULTS: Over a 1-year period, 192 patients presented a total of 266 times with acute exacerbation of COPD. The median age was 68 (IQR 58-77) years, and 54.9% of the patients were women. Diagnostic testing included chest radiography in 65.0%, blood tests in 45.1%, electrocardiography in 33.5%, and arterial blood gas tests in 6.4%; only a few patients received pulmonary function testing. In the ED, 58.7% of patients were given a short-acting β-agonist, 48.9% a short-acting anticholinergic, 27.4% corticosteroids and 19.9% antibiotics. Overall, short-acting β-agonists (63.5%), anticholinergic agents (53.4%), corticosteroids (54.5%) and antibiotics (71.1%) were prescribed more commonly to discharged patients (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: We found a low to moderate level of adherence to the CTS clinical practice guideline for the management of acute exacerbation of COPD in these rural EDs. Moreover, we identified gaps in both diagnostic and therapeutic 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".