MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362722158 · doi:10.7759/cureus.37280

Evaluating the Impact of a Novel Mobile Care Team on the Prevalence of Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions Presenting to Emergency Medical Services in Nova Scotia

2023· article· en· W4362722158 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan Brown, Judah Goldstein, Jan L. Jensen, Andrew H. Travers, Alix Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersDepartment of Health, Western Cape GovernmentNova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness
KeywordsMedicineNova scotiaMedical emergencyAmbulatoryEmergency departmentEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesAmbulatory careFamily medicineHealth careNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Hospitalization due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) is a proxy measure for access to primary care. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are increasingly called when primary care cannot be accessed. A novel paramedic-nurse EMS Mobile Care Team (MCT) was implemented in an under-serviced community. The MCT responds in a non-transport unit to referrals from EMS, emergency and primary care, and to low-acuity 911 calls in a defined geographic region. Our objective was to compare the prevalence of ACSC in ground ambulance (GA) responses before and after the introduction of the MCT. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of GA and MCT patients with ACSC (determined by chief complaint, clinical impression, treatment protocol, and medical history) from one year pre-MCT implementation to one year post-MCT implementation was conducted for the period of October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2014. Demographics were described. ACSC prevalence was compared using the chi-squared test. Results: There were 975 calls pre-MCT and 1208 GA/95 MCT calls post-MCT. ACSC in GA patients pre- and post-MCT was similar: n=122, 12.5% vs. n=185, 15.3%; p=0.06. ACSC in patients seen by EMS (GA plus MCT) increased in the post-MCT period: 122 (12.5%) vs. 204 (15.7%) p=0.04. Pre-MCT implementation vs post-implementation, GA ACSC calls differed significantly by sex with higher female utilization (n=50 vs. n=105; p=0.007), but not age (65.38, ± 15.12 vs. 62.51 ± 20.48; p=0.16). Post-MCT, the prevalence of specific ACSC increased for GA: hypertension (p<0.001) and congestive heart failure (p=0.04). MCT patients with ACSC were less likely to have a primary care provider compared to GA (90.2% and 87.6% vs. 63.2%; p=0.003, p=0.004). Conclusion: The prevalence of ACSC did not decrease for GA with the introduction of the MCT, but ACSC in the overall patient population served by EMS increased. It is possible more patients with ACSC call, or are referred to EMS, for the new MCT service. Given that MCT patients were less likely to have a primary care provider, this may represent an increase in access to care or a shift away from other emergency/episodic care. These associations must be further studied to inform the ideal utility of adding such services to EMS and healthcare systems.

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)0.005
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 score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207