MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2614315688 · doi:10.1017/cem.2017.89

LO27: System outcomes associated with an emergency department clinical decision unit

2017· article· en· W2614315688 on OpenAlexaff
Derin Karacabeyli, D.K. Park, Garth Meckler, Quynh Doan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyMedical emergencyPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: A clinical decision unit (CDU) is an area within the emergency department (ED) that allows for protocol-driven treatment & observation of patients who may not require hospital admission, but are not ready for discharge after initial assessment & treatment. A CDU was established at BC Children’s Hospital in 2014 as a means to optimize hospital resource utilization. Preliminary administrative data review revealed a return to ED (RTED) rate of 15% following a CDU stay, 2-3 times the RTED rate reported in the literature. Whether this is the expected cost of reducing hospital admissions remains unclear. Research exploring the underlying reasons for RTED following a CDU stay is limited. Objectives: Following a CDU stay, to describe 1) disposition outcome distribution; 2) underlying reasons for RTED; and 3) the proportion of potentially preventable RTED. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of all ED visits with a CDU stay from Jan 1, 2015 to Dec 31, 2015. Health records data was extracted & entered into standardized online forms by trained research assistants, then blindly reviewed by two investigators to determine a) the most probable cause of each RTED & b) the number of RTED that were clinically unnecessary. Results: Of the 1696 index CDU visits, 1503 (89%) were discharged home. However, 139 (9%) had ≥1 associated RTED. Among these, 48 (35%) were deemed clinically unnecessary (89% agreement, Kappa=0.79) & therefore potentially preventable. The most common reason (88%) for unnecessary RTED was mismatch between expected natural progression of disease (not requiring further medical assessment or treatment) & families’ understanding of disease symptom range & duration. In 90% of these cases, anticipatory guidance regarding natural progression of disease was not communicated to parents upon discharge. Among the remaining 1364 (91%) that did not return, 750 had an initial visit total ED length of stay of >8 hours, thus were considered averted hospitalizations attributable to the CDU. Conclusion: The CDU has had a positive impact on patient & system outcomes through the prevention of several inpatient admissions. However, we observed a relatively large proportion of RTED, 35% of which were clinically unnecessary & 27% of which had inadequate discharge instructions. This highlights opportunities to further optimize the effectiveness of the CDU through quality improvement initiatives focusing on the ED discharge process.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→