Understanding the use of emergency department and urgent care services by diabetic patients of a Family Medicine Health Team: a retrospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To understand the frequency, urgency, and rationale of emergency department and urgent care (ED/UC) use by diabetic patients of a Family Medicine Health Team (FHT). METHODS: A retrospective, observational study with comparison control groups was conducted from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014. A total of 693 diabetic patients were compared with two, age-standardized non-diabetic groups: one with a higher disease burden based on International Classification of Diseases 9 diagnoses and the other from a randomized patient pool. Findings The diabetic group utilized ED/UC services 1.25 and 1.92 times more often than the two control populations, consistent with that observed in other studies. Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale scores were essentially the same for the diabetic population. Only 3.1% of visits were for diabetic related emergencies, in contrast to the expected 23% by surveyed physicians of the FHT. Diabetic patient's sought treatment for cellulitis, wounds, abscesses, and infections more often than the control populations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".