The impact of increased weekend physiotherapy service provision in critical care: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At the hospital studied, weekend physiotherapy (WEPT) is routinely provided and in 2013 WEPT was increased from one (PRE) to three (POST) physiotherapists (PTs) to cover intensive care and ward patients. AIMS: (1) To evaluate the impact of increased WEPT on patient volumes, treatments provided and conditions treated in critical care and wards; and (2) to understand the PTs' perspectives on the new coverage model. METHODS: A mixed methods design was utilized. The quantitative component consisted of retrospective document reviews of all weekend patients treated January 1-May 5 (PRE) and May 11-December 31 (POST). The qualitative component used a questionnaire to collect staff feedback. PRE-POST comparisons were conducted using χ(2) or Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Significant (p = 0.00) increases POST were seen in number of patients treated, number of mobility treatments provided and number of post-surgical patients seen in both clinical areas. The majority of survey respondents reported feeling adequately trained, but had concerns regarding the impact of increased WEPT on work-life balance. CONCLUSION: PTs perceived enhanced service was beneficial for continuity of weekday care and improved patient function. Future studies need to focus on measuring the effect of increased weekend provision on outcomes, preventing complications and length of stay.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".