MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142560867 · doi:10.1891/wfccn-d-20-00016

Understanding Acute Care Usage by Adult Chronically Critically Ill Ventilated Patients: A Chart Review

2020· review· en· W3142560867 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Crowe, A. Fuchsia Howard, Gregory Haljan

Bibliographic record

VenueConnect The World of Critical Care Nursing · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial HospitalFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illIntensive care medicineMedicineChartCritical illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To better understand the rationale for acute care usage among long term care ventilated residents. Background: Chronically critically ill ventilated individuals experience complex health challenges, with many not surviving one year post initial hospitalization discharge. Recent research reports high acute care readmission rates for chronically critically ill patients, yet most studies have not examined the reasons patients are readmitted, nor the treatment and care provided during these stays. Method: A retrospective medical chart reviews of all emergency department visits and acute care admissions, occurring from August 2014 to August 2016, of chronically critically ill ventilated individuals living in a residential care facility in the province of British Columbia, Canada was conducted. Results: There were 49 emergency department visits and 56 acute care admissions over a 2 year period by 20 chronically critically ill ventilated residential care patients. The majority of acute care admissions were related to pneumonia, whereas the majority of emergency department visits were not specified. Conclusion: Chronically critically ill ventilated long term care residents are high users of acute care resources, frequently admitted for pneumonia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConnect The World of Critical Care NursingSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207