Weekend Physiotherapy Practice in Community Hospitals in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze weekend physiotherapy services in acute-care community hospitals across Canada. METHOD: Questionnaires were mailed to acute-care community hospitals (institutions with >100 inpatient beds, excluding psychiatric, mental health, paediatric, rehabilitation, tertiary, and long-term care facilities) across Canada from January to April 2010. The questionnaire collected information on patient referral criteria, staffing, workload, and compensation for weekend physiotherapy services and on the availability of other rehabilitation health professionals. RESULTS: Of 146 community hospitals deemed eligible, 104 (71%) responded. Weekend physiotherapy was offered at 69% of hospitals across Canada, but this rate varied: ≥75% in all regions except Quebec (30%). Hospitals with a high proportion of acute-care beds were more likely to offer weekend physiotherapy services (logistic regression, p=0.021). Services differed among Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in terms of the numbers of both physiotherapists and physiotherapy assistants working (Kruskal-Wallis, p<0.02 for each). Physiotherapists were predominantly compensated via time off in lieu. Of hospitals not offering weekend physiotherapy, 53% reported that it would benefit patients; most perceived staffing and financial barriers. Social-work services were offered on the weekend at 24% of hospitals and occupational therapy at 16%. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial regional variation exists in access to weekend physiotherapy services in acute-care community hospitals. To address the importance of this variation, research on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of such services is required. Substantial regional variation exists in access to weekend physiotherapy services in acute-care community hospitals. To address the importance of this variation, research on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of such services is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".