MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220873250 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000003583

Emergency department return visits and hospital admissions in trauma team assessed patients initially discharged from the emergency department: A population-based cohort study

2022· article· en· W4220873250 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentCohort studyCohortRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medical services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many injured patients are transported directly to trauma centers, found to be minimally injured, and discharged directly home from the emergency department (ED). Our objectives were to characterize the short-term outcomes in this discharged patient population and to identify patient factors predictive of ED return visits. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative data sets involving patients assessed at trauma centers in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2020. Patients who were assessed by a trauma team and discharged directly home from ED were included. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with an ED return visit within 14 days. We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify patient characteristics predictive of at least one ED return visit. RESULTS: There were 5,550 patients included in the study. A total of 1,004 (18.1%) of patients had at least one ED return visit, but only 100 patients (1.8%) were admitted to hospital following initial discharge. Common reasons for ED return visits included wound care concerns (17.2%), head injury complaints (15.6%), and substance misuse (6.8%). Rural residence (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.45-2.29), history of anxiety disorder (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.54-2.73), high baseline ED usage (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.03-3.28), penetrating injury (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.20-1.68), and extremity fracture (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.24-1.88) predicted return visits. CONCLUSION: Patients discharged directly have high rates of ED return visits but low rates of hospital admission or delayed surgical intervention. Trauma services should expand quality assurance initiatives to capture return visits, understand any gaps in clinical service provision, and aim to minimize unnecessary ED return visits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiological; Level IV.

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)0.001
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207