MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133030530

The Causes and Impact of Trauma Overtriage in Ontario

2023· dissertation· W7133030530 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Bourke W. Tillmann

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsTriageLogistic regressionOddsHealth careOdds ratioInjury Severity ScoreTrauma centerRetrospective cohort studyEmergency department
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Given the mortality benefit related to trauma centre care among severely injured patients, multiple initiatives have been undertaken to minimize the admission of these patients to non-trauma centres (undertriage). An unintended consequence of these initiatives is the transfer of patients without severe injuries to trauma centres (overtriage). To better understand the impact of overtriage on the healthcare system, this thesis aimed to evaluate hospital characteristics associated with, and quantify healthcare costs attributable to, overtriage. Methods: We identify all injured adults who presented to a non-trauma centre in Ontario using population-based administrative data (2009–2020). Bivariate generalized mixed effects models were used to estimate the accuracy of triage decisions for patients transferred from non-trauma to trauma centres. Rates of under- and overtriage were compared between centres with high and low triage accuracy using negative binomial regression. Hierarchical logistic regression was then used to investigate the impact of hospital resources on overtriage, adjusting for patient and injury characteristics. Finally, we performed a propensity-matched cohort analysis to estimate differences in 30-day healthcare costs between overtriaged patients and matched controls. Results: Triage accuracy varied significantly across non-trauma centres (diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 0.20 to 21.1). After adjusting for case-mix and resources, rates of overtriage were 75% lower at highly accurate centres relative to those with low accuracy (RR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.20–0.36), whereas there were no differences in undertriage (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.00–1.12). Resources at the hospital of presentation, including CT scanners, surgical support, and intensive care units did not impact a patient’s likelihood of overtriage. However, hospital of presentation itself had a greater impact on a patient’s odd of overtriage than any patient, injury, or hospital characteristic (MOR 3.76). Thirty-day healthcare costs were 6.5% greater among overtriaged patients relative to matched controls (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04–1.09). Conclusion: Overtriage represents a key contributor to the accuracy of trauma transfers. Our findings suggest there are high performing centres that have developed processes to ensure patients without severe injuries are cared for locally. Dissemination of these processes represents an opportunity to improve trauma systems and potentially reduce healthcare spending.

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)0.008
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→