Defining and Characterizing Visits To Emergency Departments For Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Retrospective Analysis Using Two Publicly Available Databases
Wrightson, J. G.; Truong, L. K.; Haagaard, A.; Starcevich, C.; McGrail, K.; Truter, P.; Khan, K. M.; Ardern, C. L.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe number of people with musculoskeletal conditions who visit the ED is estimated to range from 3-25% of all ED visits, challenging health service planning. The aim of this study was to examine how using different ICD code lists to define musculoskeletal conditions affected estimates for the number of people with musculoskeletal conditions who visit the ED. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we compared three different ICD code lists to see whether they provided different answers to the question: "What proportion of ED visits are due to musculoskeletal conditions?". Data were from two publicly available databases: the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV Emergency Department database and the California Department of Health Care Access and Information Hospital Emergency Department database. The total number of (a) ED visits and (b) potentially avoidable ED visits were estimated for the three code lists. Data are presented descriptively. ResultsVisits for musculoskeletal conditions accounted for between [~]6% to [~]18% of all ED visits, depending on the ICD code list used to identify visits. Between [~]6% to [~]8% of all ED visits were potentially avoidable visits for musculoskeletal conditions. ConclusionThere were larger differences in the total number of ED visits for musculoskeletal conditions identified by the different code lists than in the total number of potentially avoidable ED visits for musculoskeletal conditions. To accurately quantify and characterize patients with musculoskeletal conditions who present to the ED, researchers must first validate the criteria used to define musculoskeletal conditions.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Accuracy of the National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2) in predicting need for time-critical treatment: Retrospective observational cohort study 93%
- Impact on all-cause mortality of a case prediction and prevention intervention designed to reduce secondary care utilisation: findings from a randomised controlled trial 91%
- Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Predictive accuracy of computer-aided versions of the on-admission National Early Warning Score in estimating the risk of COVID-19 for unplanned admission to hospital: a retrospective development and validation study 91%
- Measurement Matters: Changing Penalty Calculations under the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) Cost Hospitals Millions 91%
- Spatio-temporal modelling of referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics in the integrated care system of the Morecambe Bay area, England 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP): An Interpretable Machine Learning AutoScore–Derived Triage Tool for Predicting Mortality after Emergency Admissions 91%
- The Impact of the “Muslim Ban” Executive Order on Healthcare Utilization in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 90%
- Characterizing Potential Conflicts of Interest Among UpToDate and DynaMed Content Contributors 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Distributions of Recorded Pain in Mental Health Records: A Natural Language Processing Based Study 92%
- Tracking Persistent Symptoms in Scotland (TraPSS): A Longitudinal Prospective Cohort Study of COVID-19 Recovery After Mild Acute Infection 92%
- Predicting pain and function outcomes in people consulting with shoulder pain: The PANDA-S clinical cohort and qualitative study protocol (ISRCTN 46948079) 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.