Patient isolation precautions and 30-day risk of readmission or death after hospital discharge: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Concerns have been raised that isolation precautions may have unintended consequences. The relationship between patient isolation and the 30-day risk of readmission or death among patients discharged from a general medicine ward was examined. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of adult patients discharged to the community from seven general internal medicine wards in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, from October 2013 to November 2014, was performed. Patients under contact, respiratory, or droplet precautions were considered isolated. Covariates measured at discharge included the Charlson comorbidity score, LACE index, clinical frailty, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Outcomes were measured at 30 days by telephone follow-up and provincial electronic health record query. RESULTS: Of 495 patients (mean age 62 years, 51% female), 75 (18%) were isolated during their admission. Isolated and non-isolated patients had similar lengths of stay (6.2 vs. 6.2 days), depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction scores at discharge (all p-values non-significant). At 30 days, 85 (17.2%) patients had been readmitted or had died (20.0% of isolated patients vs. 16.7% of non-isolated patients; adjusted odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital isolation does not appear to have an adverse impact on outcomes once patients are discharged from hospital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".