MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035671959 · doi:10.1186/s12873-020-00343-w

Piloting data linkage in a prospective cohort study of a GP referral scheme to avoid unnecessary emergency department conveyance

2020· article· en· W3035671959 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna M. Blodgett, Duncan Robertson, David Ratcliffe, Kenneth Rockwood

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Emergency Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentReferralProspective cohort studyEmergency medicineAttendanceCohortCohort studyPediatricsMedical emergencyInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: UK Ambulance services are under pressure to safely stream appropriate patients away from the Emergency Department (ED). Even so, there has been little evaluation of patient outcomes. We investigated differences between patients who are conveyed directly to ED after calling 999 and those referred by an ambulance crew to a novel GP referral scheme. METHODS: This was a prospective study comparing patients from two cohorts, one conveyed directly to the ED (n = 4219) and the other referred to a GP by the on-scene paramedic (n = 321). To compare differences in patient outcomes, we include follow-up data of a smaller subset of each cohort (up to n = 150 in each) including hospital admission, history of long-term illness, previous ED attendance, length of stay, hospital investigations, internal transfers, 30-day re-admission and 10-month mortality. RESULTS: Older individuals, females, and those with minor incidents were more likely to be referred to a GP than conveyed directly to ED. Of those patients referred to the GP, only 22.4% presented at ED within 30 days. These patients were more likely to be admitted then than were those initially conveyed directly to ED (59% vs 31%). Those conveyed to ED had a higher risk of death compared to those who were referred to the GP (HR: 2.59; 95% CI 1.14-5.89), however when analyses were restricted to those who presented at ED within 30 days, there was no difference in mortality risk (HR: 1.45; 95% CI 0.58-3.65). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited data and a small sample size, there were differences between patients conveyed directly to ED and those who were referred into GP care. Initial evidence suggests that referring individuals to a GP may provide an appropriate and safe alternative path of care. This pilot study demonstrated a need for larger scale, methodologically rigorous study to demonstrate the benefits of alternative conveyance schemes and recommend changes to the current system of urgent and emergency care.

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)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Emergency MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207