Multicenter analysis reveals effective triage and operational metrics for CEU in rural settings, suggesting enhancements for emergency care planning.
Background/Objectives: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding burdens rural and remote areas where geographic isolation limits timely care. The Compact Emergency Unit (CEU)—a 24 h facility with remote physician oversight—has been proposed but lacks an empirical foundation. We aimed to (1) quantify CEU-eligible (final KTAS 4–5) patients in a multicenter ED cohort; (2) compare their operational metrics with non-eligible patients; (3) characterize hourly demand for facility planning; and (4) develop machine-learning models for non-discharge prediction within this low-acuity stratum. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 12 months (January–December 2025) of NEDIS data from two Korean university-affiliated EDs. Effect sizes (Cliff’s δ, Cramér’s V) were reported alongside p-values. Three classifiers (logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost) were developed with patient-level cross-validation, comparing a 16-feature baseline and a 22-feature set augmented with arrival vital signs. Calibration and decision curve analysis were performed. Results: Of 34,544 valid triage visits (27,743 unique patients), 9871 (28.6%) were CEU-eligible. They had shorter LOS (92 vs. 171 min; Cliff’s δ = −0.51), 98.8% symptomatic home discharge, and a median of 0 specialty consultations. Nighttime visits comprised 43.7% of CEU-eligible encounters, peaking at 20:00 (1.76 visits/h/day). The non-discharge rate was 1.20% (118/9871). The vital-augmented random forest reached AUROC 0.794 (95% CI 0.758–0.829); XGBoost calibration was near-perfect (ECE 0.020). A combined ML-or-vital-sign screening rule raised non-discharge sensitivity to 94.1%. Conclusions: Approximately 29% of ED visits could be CEU-suitable. Single-modality machine learning is insufficient for safety-critical triage, but a layered ML-plus-vitals screening approach achieves operationally relevant sensitivity. Prospective implementation studies are required before clinical deployment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: