MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2763116751 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.suppl_a.25ab

22 Patients who leave the Paediatric Emergency Department without Being Seen: Why don't they Stay and Where do they go?

2004· article· en· W2763116751 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ran D. Goldman, Alison Macpherson, Suzanne Schuh, C. Mulligan, Jonathan Pirie

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentTriagePediatricsLogistic regressionProspective cohort studyEmergency medicinePopulationMedical emergencySurgeryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous children visiting Paediatric Emergency Departments (EDs) leave prior to being seen by a physician (LWBS). Of potential concern is the inability to provide them with a timely assessment and treatment. The population of children who LWBS has not been adequately characterized. The objective of this study was to examine the acuity (triage score) of children who LWBS compared to children who have stayed to be seen in the ED. We also examined variables related to LWBS and follow up healthcare use. We conducted a prospective cohort study during a 3-month period in the ED of a tertiary paediatric hospital in Toronto, Ontario. All families who LWBS were contacted and asked questions about their child's condition, use of follow-up health services, and sociodemographic variables. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare LWBS children with controls matched for age and gender. During the study period, 289 (2.6%) of families left the ED, of whom 180 (62%) consented to participate in the study. The study and control groups consisted of 158 and 316 children respectively. Waiting for too long and improved symptoms accounted for 58% and 37% of premature leaving. Of the LWBS, 14% were triaged as “urgent” and two-thirds of them sought further medical care, of whom one child was admitted. Multivariable analysis showed that patients who left had a lower acuity, compared to those who stayed (OR 4.95, 95% CI: 2.6–9.4). Most of them sought further medical attention after leaving (OR 4.63, 95% CI: 2.8–7.8), and were more likely to register in the ED between midnight and 4 am (OR 4.86, 95% CI: 2.2–10.5). Children who LWBS have a lower acuity level, seek follow-up care elsewhere, and usually leave because they get better or the wait is too long. A small proportion is triaged as “urgent” but their outcome is favorable. Further studies are recommended to address possible solutions including improving patient flow in the ED and increasing staff at peak times.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→