Changes in Emergency Department Geriatric Services in Quebec and Correlates of These Changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To describe changes in geriatric emergency department (ED) services from 2006 (T1) to 2013/14 (T2), associated factors, and outcomes. DESIGN: Two-wave survey design. SETTING: Province of Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Lead nurses and physicians at 57 EDs that participated in both the T1 and T2 surveys. INTERVENTION: Changes over time in ED geriatric services, observed naturalistically. MEASUREMENTS: Survey questionnaires assessed: ED geriatric services (11 items) and nursing and geriatric staffing resources. Key administrative data indicators for ED bed visits for T1 and T2 for ages 75 and over included: volume of ED visits; length of ED stay; admission rate; and 30-day return visits. RESULTS: There was a significant overall increase in the number ED geriatric services, from mean 2.8 (SD 2.2) at T1 to mean 6.0 (SD 2.0) at T2. EDs were clustered into 3 groups based on their T1 and T2 geriatric service scores: "early adopters" (n = 12); "late adopters" (n = 27); "non-adopters" (n = 18). Group membership was associated with three T1 variables: availability of a geriatric nurse clinician, a lower ratio of nurses to ED beds, and longer ED stays. There were significant overall increases between T1 and T2 in number of ED bed visits and ED length of stay among those aged 75 and over, decreases in hospitalization rates, but no change in ED return visits. There were no differential changes in the key indicators among the three ED clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ED geriatric services improved in Quebec from 2006 to 2013/14. EDs with a geriatric nurse clinician, relatively fewer nursing resources, and longer ED stays improved more quickly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".