MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167777686 · doi:10.24911/sjemed/72-1602223989

Factors predicting hospital admission for non-urgent patients presenting to the emergency department

2021· article· en· W3167777686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdullah Shalabi, Maweyah Alnujaidi, Ebtehal Altalhi, Rozan Kashmeeri, Raghad Aldibane

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineHospital admissionEmergency medicineMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is a scale that identifies the urgency of the case and helps to determine the time needed to be assessed by the physician in the emergency department (ED). However, further research is needed to identify factors that need to be taken into consideration in future CTAS to avoid misclassification of non-urgent patients at high risk who need admission and can be triaged away from the ED. The aim of the study was to evaluate the admission of non-urgent patients to decrease the burden on the ED by triaging them away from primary health care (PHC). Methods: A descriptive-analytical retrospective cohort study was performed including all patients who presented to the ED of King Abdullah Medical Center, Makkah, during a period starting on 9 May 2019 and were classified as CTAS levels 4 and 5. Data of those patients regarding CTAS levels, sex, age, ED visit, vital signs at triage time, pain score, chief complaint, and past medical history extracted from their electronic medical records were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS), and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of admission. Results: CTAS IV and CTAS V patients accounted for 30.3% (2509/8277) of the total ED visits. The admission rate was 6.1%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that female patients were 48% less likely to be admitted than males (adjusted odds ratio "AOR": 0.52, 95% confidence interval "CI": 0.36-0.74). Patients who presented with nausea/vomiting had an almost double chance for admission (AOR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.09-3.79). Patients with a history of hypertension (AOR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.68-3.40), cancer patients (AOR: 3.02, 95% CI: 2.11-4.32), and patients who presented with a respiratory rate exceeding 20/minute (AOR: 4.88, 95% CI: 1.45- 16.40) were more likely to be admitted than their counterparts. Conclusion: Non-urgent visits to EDs are common practice, and a considerable percentage of patients were admitted. All CTAS V cases can be safely triaged away to the PHC; CTAS IV can be either triaged away to PHC or to the urgent care center taking into consideration whether the patient is tachypneic, hypertensive or an oncology patient.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207