MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2965439634

Perspectives of ambulatory patients visiting the emergency department during the Christmas and New Year holiday period: Descriptive survey.

2019· article· en· W2965439634 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander K Leung, D. Loricchio, Robert J. Brison, Karen Graham

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbulatoryMedicineEmergency departmentDescriptive statisticsEmergency medicineAmbulatory careFamily medicineMedical emergencyPediatricsHealth careInternal medicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceptions of ambulatory patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of symptom acuity and access to care; the proportion of ambulatory patients who contacted their GPs before attending the ED; and patients' knowledge about whether their GPs provide after-hours or walk-in services. DESIGN: Descriptive survey and proportion test comparisons for data analysis. SETTING: Kingston, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: All ambulatory patients presenting to the ED from December 22, 2016, to January 2, 2017 ("holiday surge" period), and from September 25, 2017, to October 1, 2017 (nonholiday period). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' perceptions of symptom acuity and access to primary care; proportion of patients who contacted their GPs before attending the ED; and patients' knowledge about their GPs' after-hours or walk-in services. RESULTS: Overall, 1638 patients during the holiday surge period and 642 patients during the nonholiday period completed the survey (response rate of 54.8% and 38.3%, respectively). Out of all 2280 participants, 530 (23.2%) contacted their GP before going to the ED; 1514 (66.4%) participants decided to go to the ED on their own, and about half of them (795 of 1514 [52.5%]) believed their problem was urgent and could not wait for a GP. A third of all participants (825 of 2280 [36.2%]) believed their GP could have managed their medical problem if they could have gotten an appointment that day. Among a subgroup of participants with a GP, 1095 (52.5%) were aware of off-hour services provided by their GP. There were no statistically significant differences in responses between the holiday and nonholiday periods. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of ambulatory patients would have seen their GP for their medical issue if they thought that they had same-day or next-day access. There is a need for general and emergency physicians to work together on improving access to acute care services.

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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→