Reasons for repeated emergency department visits among community‐dwelling older adults with dementia in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community-dwelling older adults living with dementia visit the emergency department (ED) more frequently than other older adults, but research on the reasons for repeated visits is lacking. We examined the rate of repeated ED visits and reasons for visits in a cohort of individuals with dementia. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling older adults (≥66 years) living with dementia in Ontario, Canada, who visited the ED and were discharged home between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2019. We calculated the proportion of the population with one, two, and three or more repeat ED visits within 1 year of the baseline visit and the categorized the reason for the visits. RESULTS: Our cohort contained 175,863 individuals with dementia who visited the ED at least once. Overall, 66.1% returned at least once to the ED within 1 year, 39.4% returned twice, and 23.5% returned 3 or more times. Visit reasons were heterogenous and were most frequently related to general signs and symptoms (25.3%) while being infrequently due to cognitive or behavioral reasons (5.9%). Individuals typically visited for different reasons across successive visits. CONCLUSIONS: Community-dwelling older adults with dementia who visited an ED were very likely to return to the ED within a year, with a substantial proportion visiting multiple times. The high frequency of repeated visits for different reasons highlights the complexity of caring for this population and indicates greater need for comprehensive community and primary care as well as timely communication between the ED and the community.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".