Long emergency department length of stay: A concept analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Emergency Department (ED) Length of stay (LOS) has been associated with poor patient outcomes, which has led to the implementation of time targets designed to keep EDLOS below a specific limit. The cut-offs defining long EDLOS varies across settings and seem to be arbitrarily chosen. This study aimed to clarify the meaning of long EDLOS. METHODS: A concept analysis using the Walker and Avant approach was conducted. It included a literature search aiming to identify all uses of the concept, resulting in a set of defining attributes and a way of measuring the concept empirically. RESULTS: Long EDLOS was primarily used as proxy for other phenomena, e.g. boarding or crowding. The definitions had cut-offs ranging between 4 and 48 h. The attributes defining long EDLOS was waiting, a crowded ED environment and an inefficient organization. DISCUSSION: Time targets are probably more suitable when directed towards and tailored for specific sub-groups of the ED population.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.007 | 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 it