Cost Analysis of Treating Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures in Community Hospitals Compared With a Tertiary Care Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the current healthcare environment, providing cost-efficient care is of paramount importance. One emerging strategy is to use community hospitals (CHs) rather than tertiary care hospitals (TCHs) for some procedures. This study assesses the costs of performing closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) of pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures (SCHFs) at a CH compared with a TCH. METHODS: A retrospective review of 133 consecutive SCHFs treated with CRPP at a CH versus a TCH over a 6-year period was performed. Total encounter and subcategorized costs were compared between the procedures done at a CH versus those done at a TCH. RESULTS: Performing CRPP for a SCHF at a CH compared with a TCH saved 44% in costs (P < 0.001). Cost reduction of 51% was attributable to operating room costs, 19% to anesthesia-related costs, 16% to imaging-related costs, and 7% to supplies. DISCUSSION: Performing CRPP for a SCHF at a CH compared with a TCH results in a 44% decrease in direct cost, driven largely by surgical, anesthesia, and radiology-related savings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".