Exploring Factors That Drive Nonurgent Emergency Department Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonurgent emergency department (ED) visits continue to rise despite efforts to reduce ED overcrowding. This study aimed to explore factors influencing ED utilization and perceptions of alternative healthcare services among patients of nonurgent ED visits. Conducted at an academic, level-1 trauma center, the study identified nonurgent visits using the emergency severity index 5-level triage acuity scale and utilized a 3-part qualitative survey to gather data on demographics, reasons for ED visits, and perceptions of the ED, primary care physicians (PCPs), and urgent care centers (UCCs). Survey responses from 586 patients were analyzed, demonstrating common themes such as ED accessibility, physician qualifications, and the need for diagnostic testing. Although participants generally expressed satisfaction with PCPs and UCCs, the frequency of nonurgent ED visits remained high. The study suggests that many nonurgent cases could have been managed using alternative healthcare services; additionally, the findings align with existing literature and support the need for enhanced patient education on appropriate ED use and the benefits of utilizing alternative healthcare options.
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".