Despite Interventions, Emergency Flow Stagnates in Urban Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper reports the quantitative component of a mixed-methods study of patient flow in the 10 urban health regions/zones of Western Canada. We assessed whether jurisdictions differed meaningfully in their emergency flow performance, defined as mean emergency department length of stay (ED LOS). Methods: We used hierarchical linear modelling to compare ED LOS across jurisdictions, based on nationally reported data for 2017 to 2018. We also explored 36-month performance trends. Admitted and discharged patients were analyzed separately. Results: With the exception of one high performer, no region's performance differed significantly from average for both admitted and discharged patients. The regions' levels of performance remained largely static throughout the study period. Conclusions: Results precluded any mixed-methods comparison of high- and low-performing regions. However, they converged with our qualitative findings, which suggested that most regions were pursuing similar flow-improvement strategies with limited effectiveness. Deeper changes may be required to address persistent misalignment between capacity and demand.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".