MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066015421

Factors Relating to Decision Delay in the Emergency Department: Effects of Diagnostic Tests and Consultations

2023· article· en· W7066015421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageDiagnostic testEmergency departmentQuarter (Canadian coin)Test (biology)University hospitalDiagnostic accuracy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mustafa Gokalp Ataman,1 Gorkem Sariyer,2 Caner Saglam,3 Arif Karagoz,1 Erden Erol Unluer3 1Department of Emergency Medicine, Bakırçay University Çiğli Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey; 2Department of Business Administration, Yaşar University, İzmir, Turkey; 3Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Health Sciences Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, TurkeyCorrespondence: Mustafa Gokalp Ataman, Department of Emergency Medicine, Bakırçay University Çiğli Training and Research Hospital, 8780/1 Street No: 18 Yeni Mahalle Ata Sanayi / Çiğli, İzmir, Turkey, Tel +90 232 398 37 00, Fax +90 444 35 30, Email gokalpataman@gmail.comPurpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors increasing waiting time (WT) and length of stay (LOS) in patients, which may cause delays in decision-making in the emergency departments (ED).Patients and Methods: Patients who arrived at a training hospital in the central region of Izmir City, Turkey, during the first quarter of 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. WT and LOS were the outcome variables of the study, and gender, age, arrival type, triage level determined based on the clinical acuity, diagnosis encoded based on International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10), the existence of diagnostic tests or consultation status were the identified factors. The significance of the differences in WT and LOS values based on each level of these factors was analyzed using independent sample t-tests and ANOVA.Results: While patients for which no diagnostic testing or consultation was requested had a significantly higher WT in EDs, their LOS values were substantially lower than those for which at least one diagnostic test or consultation was ordered (p≤ 0.001). Besides, elderly and red zone patients and those who arrived by ambulance had significantly lower WT and higher LOS values than other levels for all groups of patients for which laboratory-type or imaging-type diagnostic test or consultation was requested (p≤ 0.001 for each comparison).Conclusion: Besides ordering diagnostic tests or consultation in EDs, different factors may extend patients’ WT and LOS values and cause significant decision-making delays. Understanding the patient characteristics associated with longer waiting times and LOS values and, thus, delayed decisions will enable practitioners to improve operations management in EDs.Keywords: emergency department, waiting time, length of stay, delay

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)0.013
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207