Causal Analysis of Emergency Department Delays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improvement teams make causal inferences, but the methods they use are based on statistical associations. This article shows how data and statistical models can be used to help improvement teams make causal inferences and find the root causes of problems. METHODS: This article uses attribution data, competing risk survival analysis, and Bayesian network probabilities to analyze excessive emergency department (ED) stays within one hospital. We use data recorded by ED clinicians that attributed the cause of excessive ED stays to 23 causes for the 70 049 ED visits between March 2011 and April 2014. We use competing risk survival analysis to identify contribution of each cause to the delay. We use Bayesian network models to analyze interaction among different causes of excessive stays and find the root causes of this problem. RESULTS: This article shows the utility of causal analysis to help improvement teams focus on the root causes of problems. For the example analyzed in the article, most causes for patients' excessive ED stays were related to the hospital operations outside the ED. Therefore, improvement projects inside the ED such as expanding ED, increasing staff at the ED, or improving operations are less likely to have a positive impact on reducing excessive ED stays. On the contrary, interventions that improve hospital occupancy (better discharge, expansion of beds, etc) or improve laboratory response times are more likely to result in positive outcomes.
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 | 0.066 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".