Leaving The Emergency Department Without Being Seen or Without Complete Treatment; A Study From Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background, The attitude of Leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen or without completing treatment is attributed to prolonged waiting time. The impact of such behaviour and fate of such patients remain undetermined. Aim This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of Left Without Being Seen (LWBS) and Left Without Completing Treatment (LWCT), analyse the contributing factors for such behaviour and the mortality rate within one week of leaving the ED. Methods A retrospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for three months. All adult patients of more than 14 years of age who visited the ED and LWBS or LWCT were included. Patients were seen by physicians and triaged-out, and those who were directed towards the outpatient clinic were excluded. Patients were asked about the reason for leaving, and their intention to return to the same ED again via call. Results The total number of LWBS and LWCT was 286 patients, with a response rate of 75%. The mean age was 45.8 years. About 46.6% sought medical help within seven days of leaving ED. However, the mortality rate was nil. Many patients (69.3%) reported their intention to revisit the same ED in the near future. A positive correlation was found between increasing age and admission within the same seven days’ period. Conclusion Prolonged waiting time is a public health concern that needs management strategies, the number of patients whom LWBS and LWCT require continuous monitoring and exploration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".