Revisits, Readmission, and Mortality From Emergency Department Admissions for Older Adults With Vague Presentations: Longitudinal Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Older adults (65 years and older) often present to the emergency department (ED) with an unclear need for hospitalization, leading to potentially harmful and costly care. This underscores the importance of measuring the trade-off between admission and discharge for these patients in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to measure the relationship between disposition decisions and 3-day, 9-day, and 30-day revisits, readmission, and mortality, using causal inference methods that adjust for potential measured and unmeasured confounding. Methods: A longitudinal observational study (n=3591) was conducted using electronic health records from a large tertiary teaching hospital with an ED between January 1, 2014 and September 27, 2018. The sample consisted of older adult patients with 1 of 6 presentations with significant variability in admission: falls, weakness, syncope, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, and cellulitis. The exposure under consideration was the ED disposition decision (admission to the hospital or discharge). Nine outcome variables were considered: ED revisits, hospital readmission, and mortality within 3, 9, and 30 days of being discharged from either the hospital for admitted patients or the ED for discharged patients. Results: Admission was estimated to significantly decrease the risk of an ED revisit after discharge (30-day window: -6.4%, 95% CI -7.8 to -5.0), while significantly increasing the risk of hospital readmission (30-day window: 5.8%, 95% CI 5.0 to 6.5) and mortality (30-day window: 1.0%, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.6). Admission was found to be especially adverse for patients with weakness and pneumonia, and relatively less adverse for older adult patients with falls and syncope. Conclusions: Admission may not be the safe option for older adults with gray area presentations, and while revisits and readmissions are commonly used to evaluate the quality of care in the ED, their divergence suggests that caution should be used when interpreting either in isolation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".