Profile of Eye-Related Emergency Department Visits in Ontario – A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Understanding the epidemiology of ophthalmic presentations to emergency departments can help guide resource allocation, medical education programs, and optimize the patient experience. The purpose of this investigation was to summarize and assess the urgency of ophthalmic presentations in emergency departments (EDs) in Ontario, Canada over a 5-year period. Methods: This was a multicentered retrospective review of all patient presentations to EDs in Ontario between January 1 st , 2012, to December 31 st , 2017. Presentations were included if patients had an ophthalmic related ICD-10 code as their primary problem prompting ED presentation. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded from this investigation. Results: A total of 774,057 patients patient presentations were included across the pediatric (149,679 patients) and adult (624,378 patients) cohorts. The mean (SD) age at presentation was 47.4 (17.9) years, and 6.54 (5.20) in the adult and pediatric cohorts respectively. Of the total presentations, 256,776 (33.1%) were due to a trauma related presentation. Problems pertaining to Cornea and External disease were the most common reason for presentation (51.0% of cases). Of all presentations, 34.1% were classified as either ‘emergent’ or ‘likely emergent’; the remaining presentations were either ‘non-emergent’ (39.5%) or the urgency ‘could not be determined’ (26.4%). The three most frequent presentations were due to conjunctivitis (121,175 cases or 15.7%), ocular foreign bodies (104,322 cases or 13.5%), and corneal / conjunctival abrasions (94,554 cases of 12.2%). Conclusions: This investigation summarizes all ophthalmic presentations to EDs in Ontario, Canada over a 5-year period. The results of this investigation can help guide ophthalmic related knowledge translation. Additionally, these results highlight that in Canadian EDs, a significant proportion of ophthalmic presentations are nonurgent; systems level efforts to improve access for eye-related complaints to healthcare professionals outside of the ED can help facilitate improved resource allocation. As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, optimising the structure of patient care access is crucial to help alleviate the pressure from overburdened EDs while effectively meeting patient healthcare needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".