Surgeon – Therapist Communication: Do All Members See Eye-to-Eye?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Poor interprofessional collaboration has been shown to negatively affect patient care within many fields of medicine. Growing evidence is suggesting that improved interprofessional collaboration can positively affect patient care. Postoperative rehabilitation of many orthopedic conditions necessitates the combined efforts of surgeons, and therapists. There is a paucity of literature examining collaboration among orthopedic surgeons and therapists regarding postoperative rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: The following study examines the perceived quality of communications between orthopedic surgeons and therapists employing an online survey. We hypothesized that collaborative practice patterns result in improved perceptions of communication. METHODS: Ethics board approval was obtained. Subjects consisted of orthopedic surgeons, licensed physiotherapists and certified athletic therapists. The online survey was distributed through the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA), the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) and the Canadian Athletic Therapists Association (CATA). Data analysis was performed using Stata/IC 12.1 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the median responses and ranges. Median responses were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Qualitative analysis regarding text responses was performed by three reviewers. RESULTS: Responses were received from all specialties (COA 164, CPA 524, CATA 163). There were significant differences in the perceived quality of communication by quantitative and qualitative analysis (p < 0.001). Analysis of communication within practice patterns of stand-alone versus collaborative revealed improved perception of communication quality with increased contact. 65.6% of responders that practiced as stand-alone had a negative view of interprofessional communication. 48.4% of responders in a collaborative practice had a positive view of interprofessional communication. Analysis of the preferred form of communication found that orthopedic surgeons felt the most useful referral information was a pre-printed consult sheet (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, p < 0.001), whereas therapists were more likely to rank consult notes (OR = 1.27, p < 0.042) and operative reports (OR = 1.20, p < 0.092) as a more useful form of communication. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative practice shows improved perceptions of communication between specialties. Orthopedic surgeons perceive a higher quality of communication than therapists. Therapists and orthopedic surgeons also do not agree on the information that should be relayed between the specialties regarding postoperative rehabilitation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».