Trajectory of patients consulting the emergency department for high blood pressure values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) visits for high blood pressure are increasing in frequency. We aimed to map those patients' trajectory, from referral sources to the type of care received at the ED to anticipated actions for future high blood pressure concerns, and to better understand their reasons for consulting the ED for high blood pressure values. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2020, patients who presented to the Montreal Heart Institute's ED for elevated blood pressure were recruited in a prospective observational study including a post hoc structured telephone interview and medical chart review. Five possible referral sources were predetermined. We provided proportions and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were recruited (female: 59%, mean age: 69 ± 12). A majority (93%, 95% CI 88-98%) possessed a home blood pressure device, among which 46% (95% CI 36-56%) remembered receiving advice for its use. The main referral sources for high blood pressure to the ED were self-reference (53%, 95% CI 43-63%), advice of a lay person (19%, 95% CI 11-27%) or a nurse (13%, 95% CI 6-20%). Mainly, patients reported being concerned by concomitant symptoms or experiencing acute medical consequences (44%, 95% CI 34-54%), having followed the recommendation of a third party (33%, 95% CI 24-42%), or having concerns about their medication (6%, 95% CI 1-11%). Two weeks following their ED visits, consulting ED remained the main choice for future concerns about high blood pressure for 27% of participants. When specifically asked if they would return to the ED for elevated blood pressure, 73% (95% CI 64-83%) said yes. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who consulted the ED for elevated blood pressure values were self-referred. More can be done to promote blood pressure education, effective use of personal blood pressure devices, and recommendations for patients and health professionals when confronted with high blood pressure results.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".