Emergency Care Efficiency vs. Quality: Uncovering Hidden Consequences of Fast-Track Routing Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: This work aims to examine the role of emergency department (ED) operational status related to congestion in fast-track (FT) routing decisions and the subsequent effects on patient outcomes. Methodology/results: In this paper, we utilize a two-year data set from two hospital EDs in Alberta, Canada, and adopt an instrumental variable approach to examine the effects of FT routing decisions on patient outcomes. Based on the empirical findings, we utilize a data-calibrated simulation to compare the performance of different routing policies. First, our study reveals that FT routing decisions are not purely clinically driven, and ED operational status is also associated with FT routing decisions. Second, being routed to FT can improve ED efficiency by reducing the average length of stay and left without being seen rates. However, this efficiency improvement comes at the cost of potential quality decline. In particular, being routed to the FT leads to an 8.2% increase in the 48-hour revisit rate for the high-complexity group and a 2.3% increase for the medium-complexity group. Third, we delve into the mechanisms behind observed patient outcomes and find that physicians in the FT area may prioritize expediting patient flow by simplifying patient diagnosis and treatment procedures. Consequently, the quality of care may be compromised for high- and medium-complexity patients. Finally, our simulation findings highlight the importance of selecting the “right” patients to be routed to the FT unit. To this end, the complexity-based classification method and dynamic routing policies emerge as promising avenues. Managerial implications: Our findings call for immediate attention from healthcare practitioners to carefully balance the trade-off between emergency care efficiency and quality, emphasizing the necessity of selecting the right patients for routing. Funding: This study is partially supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council [Grants GRF 11508921 and CRF C7162-20G]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.0440 .
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".