Evaluation of the quality of emergency department management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with exacerbations and high risk of serious outcomes. Our goal was to determine the appropriateness of the emergency department (ED) management of COPD exacerbations. METHODS: This observational cohort study incorporated a health records review and included COPD exacerbation cases seen at two large academic EDs. We included all patients with the primary diagnosis of COPD exacerbation. From the electronic medical record, demographic and clinical data were abstracted, and the Ottawa COPD Risk Score (OCRS) was calculated for each. Short-term serious outcomes included intensive care unit admission, intubation, myocardial infarction, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV), and death at 30 days. Cases were judged for appropriateness of treatment according to explicit indications and standards developed a priori. RESULTS: We enrolled 500 cases with mean age of 71.9 years, 51.2% female patients, 50.2% admitted, and 4.4% death. The calculated OCRS score was >2 for 70.8% of patients. The treatments provided were inhaled β-agonists (82.6%), inhaled anticholinergics (76.6%), corticosteroids (75.2%), antibiotics (71.0%), oxygen (63.8%), NIV (8.8%), and intubation (0.6%). Overall, 50.0% of cases were judged to have had inadequate management due to missing treatments. Specifically, the proportion of missing treatments were inhaled β-agonist (17.0%), inhaled anticholinergic (22.6%), corticosteroids (24.4%), antibiotics (12.8%), and NIV (2.0%). CONCLUSION: Adequate treatment of COPD exacerbation was lacking in 50.0% of patients in these two large academic EDs. Concerning were the number of patients not receiving corticosteroids or antibiotics. Implementation of explicit treatment standards should lead to improved patient care of this common and serious condition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".