Gastroenterologist Consultation Is Uncommon but Associated with Improved Care Among IBD Patients Presenting to Emergency Departments in Winnipeg Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the patterns of care when persons with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) present to the Emergency Department (ED) and post-ED follow-up. METHODS: We linked the University of Manitoba IBD Epidemiology Database with the Emergency Department Information System of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. We then generated a list of all ED attendances by persons with IBD at four of six hospitals within the City of Winnipeg (two academic and two community hospitals). The charts were reviewed by two investigators extracting data on testing, consulting and treatment undertaken in the ED as well as postdischarge follow-up. We focused on outcomes among those attending the ED but not admitted to hospital. RESULTS: Of 1275 IBD patients with a first visit to the ED, 523 (41%) were for IBD-specific complaints. Three hundred and twenty-seven (62.5%) were discharged from the ED without an in-hospital admission. Nearly 80% had an identified gastrointestinal (GI) specialist (either gastroenterologist or GI surgeon) involved in their care. A gastroenterologist was consulted in the ED 20% of the time. Follow-up post-ED with a gastroenterologist was only documented in 36%. For those who saw a gastroenterologist in the ED, there was more likely to be a change in medications and follow-up arranged with a gastroenterologist. ED consultation with a gastroenterologist was the only predictor of seeing a gastroenterologist in follow-up post-ED. CONCLUSIONS: ED gastroenterology consultation is more likely to effect IBD management change. When discharged from the ED gastroenterology, follow-up should be arranged and documented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".