Understanding the Impact of Chronic Pain in the Emergency Department: Prevalence and Characteristics of Patients Visiting the Emergency Department for Chronic Pain at an Urban Academic Health Sciences Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Canadians make approximately 16 million visits to the emergency department (ED) each year. ED visits for non-urgent reasons contribute to suboptimal patient care and ineffective resource use.Aims To estimate the proportion of ED visits related to chronic pain at our institution. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of 1000 randomly selected ED visits at TOH during the 2012–2013 fiscal year (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013). Visits for chronic pain were identified using pre-defined criteria. Demographic and medical data were extracted from medical charts.Results 104 visits during this time period were related to chronic pain (10.4%; 95% CI: 8.2–12.6). All visits were from unique patients (i.e., no patients contributed more than 1 visit). Patients were predominantly women (71%), with a mean age of 45.9 years. Seventy-eight percent of patients had a primary care provider. The most common location of pain included the abdomen (24%), the head or face (21%), and the low back (21%). Only 5% of patients had consultation with a pain medicine specialist while 78% were awaiting a consultation. More than 2/3 of patients (71%) reported using opioids for their pain.Conclusion Presenting to the ED for chronic pain was found to occur among a sample of ED visits reviewed. This can result in ineffective care for patients with chronic pain. Cost-effective solutions to improve clinical outcomes and reduce ED use for chronic pain may yield significant improvements in health outcomes of patients and benefits for the health care system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".