Geriatric Visits to the Emergency Department at an Academic Tertiary Care Center in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Geriatric patients aged more than 60 years are a vulnerable group of patients needing special care in the emergency department. This study aims to determine the prevalence of geriatric patients visiting the emergency department and explore the various aspects of those visits. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all emergency department visits from August 2016 to July 2017 was performed at King Abdulaziz University Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Results: Of 34,127 emergency department visits by adults, 6,533 (19.14%) were made by geriatric patients (age range, 60-115 years; average, 71.25 years), representing about 45 nationalities (48.62% were Saudi). Triage priority using the “Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale” showed that 36.08% of the visits were emergencies, 49.35% were urgent, and 14.57% were non-urgent. Most (40.47%) of the visits were made during the morning, almost double the number made at night (23.30%). Geriatric patients presenting with a single complaint represented 62.47% of these visits, those presenting with two complaints represented 31.01%, and those presenting three or more complaints, 6.52%. The most common complaints were dyspnea (25.28%), chest pain (13.16%), and abdominal pain (10.82%). In the final diagnoses, diseases of circulatory system were most frequent (15.20%). The admission rate was 28.38%, and the mortality rate was 1.94%. Conclusion: Geriatric patients visiting the emergency department represent one-fi ft h of all emergency department visits by adults. They commonly present with complex medical conditions, making the approach to their diagnoses more challenging. Therefore, we recommend paying greater attention using multidisciplinary services and follow up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".