Asthma Management at Discharge from the Emergency Department: A Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of asthma remains suboptimal despite the publication of Canadian asthma guidelines in 1999. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted to estimate the proportion of patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) for an asthma exacerbation who received a management plan at discharge that was in accordance with seven criteria stated in the Canadian asthma guidelines. The present study took place in two tertiary care hospitals in Montreal, Quebec. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients were enrolled. Three (8%) patients received a management plan at discharge that was in accordance with all seven criteria. Inhaled corticosteroids and oral corticosteroids were prescribed at discharge for 29 (78%) and 35 (95%) patients, respectively. Minimal asthma education was provided for 29 (78%) patients and a medical follow-up was recommended to 22 (60%) patients. Airflow obstruction was evaluated at discharge for only 20 (54%) patients. CONCLUSION: Overall, asthma management at discharge from the ED was generally not in accordance with the 1999 Canadian asthma guidelines. A standardized management plan should be implemented in the ED to improve the care of patients with asthma exacerbations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".