Frequent emergency department use by older adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions: A population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify factors associated with frequent emergency department (ED) use among older adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using databases from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. We included community-dwelling individuals aged ≥65 years in the Province of Quebec (Canada), who consulted in ED at least once between 2012 and 2013 (index period), and were diagnosed with at least one ambulatory care sensitive condition in the 2 years preceding and including the index date (n = 264 473). We used a multivariate logistic regression model to evaluate the association between independent variables and being a frequent geriatric ED user, defined as four or more visits during the year after the index date. RESULTS: Out of the total study population, 17 332 (6.6%) individuals were considered frequent ED users in the year after the index date, accounting for 38% of ED uses for this period. The main variables associated with frequent geriatric ED use were older age, presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder or diabetes, higher comorbidity index, common mental health disorders, polypharmacy, higher number of past ED and specialist visits, rural residence, and higher material and social deprivation. Dementia was inversely associated with frequent ED use. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent geriatric ED users constitute a complex population whose characteristics need to be managed thoroughly in order to enhance the quality and efficiency of their care. Further studies should address their description in administrative databases so as to combine self-perceived and professionally evaluated variables. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 317-323.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".