Holiday Fast-Track Reduced Medical Cost and Length of Emergency Department Stay: Preliminary Report from a Single Secondary Care Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The aims of this study were to compare the effect of a Holiday Fast-Track (HFT) unit on medical costs and emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) associated with low acuity patients attended during the same timeframe in two consecutive years in a single secondary care hospital ED. Methods Two groups (non-HFT vs. HFT), before and after the fast-track unit was implemented, were compared. The HFT unit was operated to improve the flow of low acuity patients, which were defined as the patients classified as level 4 or 5 by the modified Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale. Data were collected from March 1 to April 30, 2011 for the non-HFT group and during the same period in 2012 for the HFT group. Results A total of 894 (431 for non-HFT period and 463 for HFT period) patients of acuity level 4 or 5 visited the ED during the study period. Compared to the non-HFT group, the ED LOS of the HFT group decreased by 27 min and 3.5 min in the patients with acuity levels 4 and 5, respectively (p=0.005 and p=0.003, respectively). Furthermore, total medical costs and laboratory fees were also reduced significantly in the HFT group (p<0.001, p=0.038). However, there was no difference in the other variables between those two groups. Conclusions The HFT system decreases the medical costs and LOS in low acuity patients visiting the ED of a secondary care hospital. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2015;22:84-92)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".