The impact of a universal admission order on health system capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our health system with multiple campuses, a universal admissions order (UAO) was introduced to further improve patient flow. We hypothesized that the UAO would more evenly distribute health system capacity, with an increase in admissions to the community affiliate sites. Inpatient and emergency department (ED) metrics were evaluated, and included total admissions, admissions to each clinical site from each ED, the time to the inpatient bed being ready to receive the ED patient, boarding times, and the left without being seen rate. After implementation of the UAO, the average time to inpatient beds being ready to accept ED patients decreased at all three clinical sites by an average of 25 minutes. Admissions were more evenly distributed amongst the three clinical sites, with 3% of all admissions admitted to a new campus. While there were likely other variables at play, there was system-wide reduction in the time to inpatient beds being ready to accept ED patients, and an improvement in boarding at the main clinical site. Our work suggests that a UAO could be a useful adjunct to central capacity management in a health system with multiple clinical campuses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".