The Cost of Use of the Emergency Department by Persons With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Living in a Canadian Health Region: A Retrospective Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the costs of emergency department (ED) attendance by persons with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) not admitted to hospital from the ED. METHODS: This was a population-based administrative database study linking the University of Manitoba IBD Epidemiology Database with the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) ED Information Service database. We identified persons with IBD who presented to the ED and were not admitted between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2012. We then applied costs in Canadian dollars for these visits including an average ED visit cost plus 26% for overhead (total = $508), an average estimated cost of laboratory investigations ($50), and costs for each of radiographic imaging, lower endoscopy and consultation with an internist/gastroenterologist or a surgeon. We tallied the costs of each unique ED presentation. We determined average costs for visits associated with specific consultations or investigations. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred and eighty-two persons with IBD (4,853 individual visits) attended the ED and did not get hospitalized. The average cost per ED visit by a person with IBD who did not get hospitalized was $650. This resulted in a total expenditure of $3,152,227 on these persons for their ED attendance or $969,916 per year. The visits with the highest mean costs were those associated with an abdominal computerized tomography scan ($979), those associated with surgical consultation ($1019), and those associated with an internist/gastroenterologist consultation ($942). CONCLUSION: Better strategies for management of acute issues for persons with IBD that can reduce the use of an ED are needed and can be considerably cost saving.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".