MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121178878 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045351

Development of the PriCARE classification for potentially preventable emergency department visits by ambulance: a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi study protocol

2021· article· en· W3121178878 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan P. Strum, Walter Tavares, Andrew Worster, Lauren E. Griffith, Ahmad Rahim, Andrew P. Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionMedical emergencyDelphi methodTriageProtocol (science)Acute careHealth careNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Ontario ambulances are restricted from patient transportation to sub-acute levels of care when these facilities may be more suitable than emergency departments for non-emergent conditions. There is no known patient classification specifically constructed to inform ED diversion protocols and guidance for sub-acute centre transportation for primary care-like patient conditions. OBJECTIVE: To construct a novel patient classification of potentially preventable emergency department visits following transport by ambulance, and analyse patient-level characteristic associations with this classification based in Ontario secondary data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Primary Care-like Ambulance transports following Response for 911-Emergencies (PriCARE) patient classification will be constructed using a two-phase RAND/UCLA modified Delphi design. All experts included are physicians with relevant experience in emergency and/or primary care in Ontario. The first phase of the study will determine consensus of the expert committee on which ED interventions performed on patients with non-emergent acuities could be conducted in sub-acute healthcare centres. The second phase will assess consensus of which patient, hospital and acuity factors are most appropriate to be incorporated into a PriCARE classification. We will also investigate secondary outcomes on consensus of which ED interventions could be transferred to a paramedic context given an expanded scope of practice and patient-level characteristics of PriCARE classified individuals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received a research ethics board exemption waiver from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; review reference 2020-11451-GRA. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. The results will be shared with Ontario paramedic services and governing institutions. This study will be used to inform patient classification protocols and clinical decision tools for ambulances to transport to sub-acute healthcare centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22901977.

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)0.160
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1600.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.012

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207