Asthma Management in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate various aspects of the management of adult patients who present to the emergency department with acute exacerbations of asthma and who are discharged from the emergency department without hospital admission. Further, to compare the results with accepted management guidelines for the emergency department treatment of asthma. DESIGN: A retrospective chart collection and review until each site contributed 50 patients to the survey. SETTING: Three tertiary care hospitals in the Saskatoon Health District, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The study period was from July 1, 1997 to November 18, 1997. POPULATION: Patients aged 17 years or older, who were discharged from the emergency department with the diagnosis of asthma. METHODS: Data were collected on 130 patients from 147 emergency department visits. RESULTS: A number of important physical examination findings were frequently not documented. In contrast to management guidelines, peak expiratory flow rates (44%) and spirometry (1%) were not commonly used in patient assessments. Only 59% of patients received treatment in the emergency departments with inhaled or systemic corticosteroids. Furthermore, specific follow-up plans were infrequently documented in the emergency department charts (37%). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence with published Canadian guidelines for the emergency department management of acute asthma exacerbations was suboptimal. Corticosteroid use in the emergency department was significantly less than recommended. Increased emphasis on education and implementation of accepted asthma management guidelines is necessary.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".