MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117570580 · doi:10.1155/emmi/5425429

Analyzing the Reasons and Hospital Admission Rates of 72‐Hour Emergency Department Revisits

2025· article· en· W7117570580 on OpenAlex
Abdulaziz Alalshaikh, Bader Alyahya, Badr Aldawood, Abdulaziz Almehlisi, Sara Almubrik, Sarah Alaidarous, Abdulrahman M. Alrajhi, Abdulaziz Alhussainy, Mohammed K Alageel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentHospital admissionPsychological interventionHealth careMEDLINEIdentification (biology)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) revisits are considered a significant indicator of the quality of care provided and are used as a benchmark for the performance of individual providers and institutions. The aim of this study is to assess ED revisit rates, reasons, and hospital admission rates among our adult ED patients. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review study conducted in a single-center tertiary referral hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Study participants comprised adult patients who attended the ED, had been discharged, and had an ED revisit within 72 h from April 2019 to January 2020. Results: A total of 573 patients met our inclusion criteria, of whom 53.1% were males. The majority of the patients (74.5%) revisiting the ED were categorized as CTAS Level 3, with gastrointestinal complaints being the most common presentation for revisits (23.6%). During the second visit, 94%, 4%, 0.7%, and 0.3% of the participants were discharged, admitted, discharged against medical advice, and died, respectively. Disease progression was the most common cause of revisits at 96.5%. The factors that showed statistically significant associations with nondischarge disposition in the second visit were CTAS levels in the first and second visits, dementia, functional dependency, and reason for the revisit. Conclusion: Most ED visits within 72 h are due to disease progression rather than system- or physician-related issues, and the majority of these patients are safely discharged after the second visit. Identification of high-risk patients-such as those with higher CTAS levels, dementia, or functional dependency-may aid emergency physicians in implementing targeted discharge planning and coordinated outpatient follow-up to reduce unnecessary revisits and optimize use of emergency services. Our findings highlight the importance of structured post-discharge support and underscore the need for tailored interventions in resource-limited healthcare settings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.340 · 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