Emergency department utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Optimizing resource utilization is critical to reducing healthcare costs. Our study aims to review trends in overall patient volume, acuity, time of presentation, and use of resources in the emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: We compared ED utilization from a 30-day period during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1, 2020-April 30, 2020) to the same 30-day period in the preceding calendar year (April 1, 2019-April 30-2019). Data were grouped into outcome measures focusing on ED throughput and utilization of ancillary ED services.Results: While the absolute number of patients in or arriving to the ED at any given time was significantly lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (p < .01), the hourly patterns of patient census, arrivals, and admissions all aligned with pre-pandemic values. Also, patient acuity, as measured by ESI level, did not significantly change. The absolute number of admissions for bothsites was similar to the pre-pandemic time period, but the percentage of patients admitted over the 30-day period increased. The absolute number of radiographic and laboratory studies ordered in the ED also changed significantly (p < .05), but the hourly pattern did not.Conclusions: Our study shows significantly lower patient volumes, increased admission rates, and no significant change in the hourly throughput of the ED. Thus, our analysis suggests that shift times should not be adjusted, nor should the number or composition of providers on each shift in academic and community ED sites during the COVID national lockdown.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".