Canadian in-hospital mortality for patients with emergency-sensitive conditions: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergency department (ED) sensitive hospital standardized mortality ratio (ED-HSMR) measures risk-adjusted mortality for patients admitted to hospital with conditions for which ED care may improve health outcomes. This study aimed to describe in-hospital mortality across Canadian provinces using the ED-HSMR. METHODS: Hospital discharge data were analyzed from April 2009 to March 2012. The ED-HSMR was calculated as the ratio of observed deaths among patients with emergency-sensitive conditions in a hospital during a year (2010-11 or 2011-12) to the expected deaths for the same patients during the reference year (2009-10), multiplied by 100. The expected deaths were estimated using predictive models fitted from the reference year. Aggregated provincial ED-HSMR values were calculated. A HSMR value above or below 100 respectively means that more or fewer deaths than expected occurred within a province. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,335,379 patients were admitted to hospital in Canada with an emergency-sensitive condition as the most responsible diagnosis. More in-hospital deaths (95% confidence interval) than expected were respectively observed for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in Newfoundland [124.3 (116.3-132.6); & 117.6 (110.1-125.5)] and Nova Scotia [116.4 (110.7-122.5) & 108.7 (103.0-114.5)], while mortality was as expected in Prince Edward Island [99.9 (86.5-114.8) & 100.7 (87.5-115.3)] and Manitoba [99.2 (94.5-104.1) & 98.3 (93.5-103.3)], and less than expected in all other provinces and territories. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed important variation in risk-adjusted mortality for patients admitted to hospital with emergency-sensitive conditions among Canadian provinces. The ED-HSMR may be a useful outcome indicator to complement existing process indicators in measuring ED performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A - Retrospective cohort study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".