Emergency radiology in Canada: a national survey.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To document the existing radiology services available to emergency physicians in hospitals across Canada and to preview future trends and needs. METHODS: Questionnaires (n = 130) regarding the type, availability and satisfaction with radiology services were distributed to radiologists and emergency physicians at 65 hospitals across Canada. RESULTS: Fifty-three (41%) questionnaires were returned, and 45 (35%) completed questionnaires from 35 hospitals were used for analysis (24 from radiologists and 21 from emergency physicians). Plain radiographs were available in all hospitals at all times. Ultrasonography, intravenous pyleograms and computed tomography (CT) were available in all departments during normal working hours; after hours, CT was unavailable in 1 hospital and ultrasonography was unavailable in 2. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) was routinely performed for blunt abdominal trauma in 6 centres, and 10 centres had teleradiology services. Regarding the quality of emergency service, 7 of 45 responded "poor," 4 "average," 14 "good," and 17 of 45 rated service "excellent." Interestingly, most radiologists answered "good" or "excellent," and most of the "poor" responses came from emergency physicians. Regarding staff coverage after 5 pm, 34 hospitals provided CT services, 20 had ultrasonography staff available, and there was radiology nursing coverage in 14 hospitals. Clinical details on requisitions were generally rated "adequate" or "poor." Although most radiograph reports were available within 48 hours, some took longer. Hot-seat reporting was available in 11 centres. During normal working hours, radiologists were the first to read films in 5 of 35 hospitals. After hours, emergency physicians were the first to read films in all hospitals, but only 14 hospitals indicated they were "formally" trained to do so. CONCLUSION: This survey documents the strengths and weaknesses of the radiology services available to emergency physicians. The perceptions of emergency physicians and radiologists of the adequacy those services differ significantly.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».