MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2943236557 · doi:10.1017/cem.2019.207

P016: Utilization and outcomes of children presenting to an emergency department by ambulance

2019· article· en· W2943236557 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary Cantor, Mary Aglipay, Amy C. Plint

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentGeeGeneralized estimating equationRetrospective cohort studyPresentation (obstetrics)Emergency medicineCohortPediatricsTriagePrimary careInternal medicineFamily medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Children account for a low proportion of paramedic transports. Evidence suggests that many pediatric transports are of low acuity, but there are few studies comparing these patients to those that self-present to the ED. Our primary objective was to determine if illness severity was associated with presentation by ambulance among pediatric patients. Methods: We undertook a single centre, retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care pediatric centre. All patients presenting to the ED in 2015 by any route other than air ambulance were eligible. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the route of presentation – ambulance or self-presentation. The primary outcome was disposition decision; the secondary outcome was CTAS level. To determine whether patient discharge disposition or CTAS was associated with method of arrival, we conducted generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for correlation within patients with multiple ED visits. Results: Of the 69,092 visits, 69,034 were eligible and analyzed. Of those, 4478 arrived by ambulance, while 64,556 self-presented. Those arriving by ambulance had a median age of 10 years [IQR: 2-5 years] vs. 4 years [IQR: 1.75-10 years] in the self-presenting group, and were 52.6% male (vs. 52.8%). Two percent of the ambulance cohort were admitted to the ICU (vs. 0.2%), and 16.6% were admitted to the ward (vs. 5%). Patients presenting by ambulance had higher CTAS scores – 5.3% CTAS 1 (vs. 0.3%), 16.4% CTAS 2 (vs. 7.0% ), 61.2% CTAS 3 (vs. 45.8%), and 17.1% CTAS 4-5 (vs. 46.9%). The odds of arriving by ambulance were 10.2 x higher for patients admitted to the ICU (OR = 10.2, 95%CI: 7.9 to 13.3) vs. those discharged home. The odds of arriving by ambulance was 64.2 x (OR = 64.2, 95% CI: 48.6 to 84.7) higher for patients CTAS 1 patients vs. CTAS 5 patients. The top 3 complaints among ambulance patients were respiratory (22.7%), orthopedic (14.7%), and general/minor (10.3%). Among self-presenting patients, the top three were general/minor (22.5%), respiratory (18.0%), and gastrointestinal (15.7%). Conclusion: Children presenting to the ED via ambulance are at higher risk for admission to the ward and critical care unit. It is important that EMS staff responsible for transporting children be well trained in managing critically ill children. Given the low proportion of pediatric transports, consideration must be given to how best to train EMS services in managing these children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→