The association between home care visits and same-day emergency department use: a case–crossover study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent to which home care visits contribute to the delay or avoidance of emergency department use is poorly characterized. We examined the association between home care visits and same-day emergency department use among patients receiving publicly funded home care. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-crossover study among patients receiving publicly funded home care in the Hamilton-Niagara-Haldimand-Brant region of Ontario between January and December 2015. Within individuals, all days with emergency department visits after 5 pm were selected as cases and matched with control days from the previous week. The cohort was stratified according to whether patients had ongoing home care needs ("long stay") or short-term home care needs ("short stay"). We used conditional logistical regression to estimate the association between receiving a home care visit during the day and visiting the emergency department after 5 pm on the same day. RESULTS: A total of 4429 long-stay patients contributed 5893 emergency department visits, and 2836 short-stay patients contributed 3476 visits. Receiving a home care nursing visit was associated with an increased likelihood of visiting the emergency department after 5 pm on the same day in both long-stay (odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.48) and short-stay patients (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39). Stronger associations were observed for less acute visits to the emergency department. No associations were observed for other types of home care visits. INTERPRETATION: Patients receiving home care were more likely to visit the emergency department during the evening on days they received a nursing visit. The mechanism of the association between home care visits and same-day emergency department use and the extent to which same-day emergency department visits could be prevented or diverted require additional investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".