Low-acuity presentations to the emergency department: Reasons for and access to other health care providers before presentation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic characteristics of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) for low-acuity issues and to explore their self-reported contact with other sources of primary health care before presenting to the ED. DESIGN: Survey distributed in the ED waiting room. SETTING: A high-volume ED in Vancouver, BC. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 232 respondents aged 18 years or older in the ED waiting room. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Actions taken to seek health care for the current issue before presenting to the ED and predictors of first seeking nonurgent care. RESULTS: Of the 398 people approached, 232 (58.3%) people completed the survey. Exactly half (95% CI 43.6% to 56.4%) sought alternative care before presenting to the ED. Predictors for having sought alternative care included illness presentation and longer symptom duration, while injury presentation and work-related presentation were associated with not seeking alternative care. Most participants (162 patients, 87.6%) believed that the ED was the most appropriate place for them to receive care for their problem, while only 87 (45.3%) believed that an adjacent primary care clinic would be an acceptable alternative. CONCLUSION: Many patients do attempt to seek alternative care before presenting to the ED with low acuity issues. Most patients believe that the ED is the best place for them to receive care and are uncertain about using a primary care alternative. Further research is needed to explore barriers and motivators patients face in their decisions to seek care, as well as potential patient education methods to improve appropriate ED use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".