MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564239468 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2016.24940

Variation in Emergency Department Transfer Rates from Nursing Homes in Ontario, Canada

2016· article· en· W2564239468 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Andrea Gruneir, Susan E. Bronskill, Alice Newman, Chaim M. Bell, Peter Gozdyra, George Anderson, Paula A. Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalInstitute for Work & HealthInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEmergency departmentNursingMedicineEmergency nursingNursing homesPsychological interventionVariation (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) residents are frequently transferred to the emergency department (ED) but there is little data on inter-facility variation, which has implications for intervention planning and implementation. OBJECTIVES: To describe variation in ED transfer rates (TRs) across NHs and the association with NH characteristics. DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data from Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: 71,780 residents of 604 NHs in 2010 and followed for one year. MEASUREMENTS: Funnel plots were used to identify high transfer NHs and logistic regression to test the association with NH location, size, ownership and historical ED transfer rate. RESULTS: One-year ED transfer rates ranged from 4.3% to 58.6% (mean 28.4%); 115 (19%) NHs were considered high. Being within five minutes of an ED, larger size and high historical ED transfer rate were associated with being a high ED transfer home. CONCLUSION: There was substantial variation across NHs. Consideration of characteristics such as proximity to an ED may be important in the development and targeting of different interventions for NHs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207