MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014213300 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2020.26139

Analysis of Extreme Length of Stay Hospitalizations for Children and Youth in a Quaternary Care Hospital

2020· article· en· W3014213300 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elisabeth Yorke, Lennox Huang, Julia Orkin, Tyler Chalk, Farrah Ladha, Alène Toulany

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsWellesley InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenSouthlake Regional Health CenterUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceMedicineEmergency medicineFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Length of stay (LOS) is an important issue for many healthcare organizations. In-patients with extreme LOS account for a disproportionately large percentage of hospital costs. Our analysis of over 15,000 pediatric hospital discharges at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada) between 2015 and 2016 revealed that the vast majority of patients with extreme LOS were discharged directly home, with only a minority receiving home-based services. Patients with the greatest LOS were accounted for by primarily four subspecialty services. Although this report outlines an analysis of pediatric in-patients, our findings and implications are relevant for all jurisdictions and populations as many acute care hospitals often "hold" patients with complex, chronic illness as in-patients for extended periods because alternate appropriate services may not exist or be available. Our case study highlights three key areas to improve quality of care for patients with extreme LOS: alternate levels of care, system resources and transitions to home.

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)0.003
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207