MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409541458 · doi:10.7759/cureus.82441

First Visit Fallout: Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) and Emergency Department Returns

2025· article· en· W4409541458 on OpenAlexaffabout
David A. Lewis, Jacqueline Fraser, Michael Howlett, Matthew D. Greer, Paul Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityDalhousie UniversitySaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriageEmergency departmentMedical emergencyScale (ratio)Emergency medicineNursingCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Unplanned return visits (URVs) to the emergency department (ED) within 72 hours are an important quality indicator in emergency medicine, linked to patient safety and the quality of initial care. This study examines whether the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) category at the initial visit predicts the likelihood of hospital admission upon URV. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted over a 12-month period at a tertiary care teaching hospital. URVs were defined as registrations within 72 hours of an initial ED discharge, excluding planned returns. Data were extracted from electronic health records, including demographics, CTAS category, disposition, and admission status. Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Fisher's exact test to examine relationships between CTAS and admission risk. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Of 57,025 ED attendances, 82.1% (46,793) were discharged, of whom 7.6% (3,566) returned within 72 hours. Among URVs, 14.9% (532) resulted in admission. Admission rates on return varied by initial CTAS level, ranging from 23.1% (CTAS 1) to 4.8% (CTAS 5). CTAS 3 patients represented over half of all visits and the highest absolute number of return admissions. A strong negative correlation was observed between CTAS level and URV admission rate (Pearson r = -0.89; p = 0.04). Linear regression confirmed a statistically significant inverse trend, with each one-point increase in CTAS corresponding to a 5.4% absolute reduction in admission rate (R² = 0.90, p = 0.014). Patients triaged as CTAS 1-2 had a relative risk of 1.90 (95% CI: 1.57 to 2.30) for admission on return compared to those triaged as CTAS 3-5. Conclusions The initial CTAS level is a strong predictor of admission following URVs. Stratified analysis revealed that CTAS 3 patients comprise a clinically important group, both in volume and admission risk. These findings support the use of triage-based reporting in ED quality improvement initiatives.

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 score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→