Exploring the experience of boarded psychiatric patients in adult emergency departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study quantifies the frequency of adverse events (AEs) experienced by psychiatric patients while boarded in the emergency department (ED) and describes those events over a broad range of categories. METHODS: A retrospective chart review (RCR) of adult psychiatric patients aged 18-55 presenting to one of four Calgary EDs (Foothills Medical Centre (FMC), the Peter Lougheed Centre (PLC), the Rockyview General Hospital (RGH), and South Health Campus (SHC)) who were subsequently admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit between January 1, 2019 and May 15, 2019 were eligible for review. A test of association was used to determine the odds of an independent variable being associated with an adverse event. RESULTS: During the study time period, 1862 adult patients were admitted from EDs (city wide) to the psychiatry service. Of the 200 charts reviewed, the average boarding time was 23.5 h with an average total ED length of stay of 31 h for all presentations within the sample. Those who experienced an AE while boarded in the ED had a significantly prolonged average boarding time (35 h) compared to those who did not experience one (6.5 h) (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The length of time a patient is in the emergency department and the length of time a patient is boarded after admission significantly increases the odds that the patient will experience an AE while in the ED. Other significant factors associated with AEs include the type of admission and the hospital the patient was admitted from.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".