Abstract WP3: EMS Routing for Endovascular Patients- One Health Care Systems Successful Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Annually, over 1500 stroke patients are seen within a large metropolitan health system. The health system encompasses a designated comprehensive (CSC) and multiple primary (PSC) stroke hospitals with varying capabilities to manage stroke patients, resulting in varied care delivery. While CSCs mitigate inconsistencies by establishing a standard of stroke care, one shortcoming of the CSC model is lack of regulation in transfer of patients between centers within a health system containing multiple stroke designations. Purpose: The purpose of the project was to create a streamlined, emergency stroke work-up process across the various levels of stroke hospitals and to apply rapid routing practices for EMS when transferring stroke patients between facilities. These changes could reduce treatment times and optimize resources to facilitate transportation of stroke patients to the appropriate center. Methods: The system stroke steering team, in collaboration with regional EMS directors initiated 5 primary processes to reduce delays. These included 1) door in to door out times of 60 minutes, 2) loading radiology images into a cloud environment, 3) development of EMS algorithms, 4) prompt follow-up reports on stroke transfers, and 5) rapid loop-closure on gaps in the process. A reduction in door-to-therapy time and measures of patient outcome were used as indicators for effectiveness. Results: Implementation of a streamlined ED process and new routing protocol was associated with improved door-to-door times, door-to-treatment times and EMS transport times. Additionally, risk-adjusted mortality decreased from 0.7 in 2012 to 0.3 in 2014. Similarly, thrombolytic complications in intravenous and endovascular patients decreased from 7.5% in 2012 to 1.7% in 2014, while treatment rates in both increased. Conclusion: Within a large health system, utilizing a consistent ED process and new EMS routing protocol could contribute to improved outcomes. This raises the possibility that implementing system routing practices may improve collaboration within stroke systems of care and advance the CSC model.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.003 |
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".