Patient compliance with a group model of care: the hernia clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In February 2006, a hernia clinic was established at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. It was based on a group model of care and was established to increase effective use of resources to reduce waiting times. We conducted a survey of patients referred to the hernia clinic to determine compliance. METHODS: We developed and mailed a questionnaire to all patients who had surgery after assessment at the hernia clinic. Data were analyzed for the entire study group and for 2 subgroups: patients in group I had the same surgeon for assessment and surgery, whereas patients in group II had a different surgeon for assessment and surgery. Differences between subgroups were assessed using the 2-tailed Fisher exact test. Waiting times were recorded. RESULTS: In all, 94 patients responded to the survey. Of these, 67% had the same surgeon for assessment and surgery, and 31% had a different surgeon; 2% were not sure. Two-thirds were comfortable having their surgery performed by a surgeon whom they met the day of surgery. Most patients had confidence in the competence of any surgeon and considered service to be better and faster in a specialized centre. Most felt that a group of surgeons providing hernia care uses resources more effectively. The waiting times from referral to initial consult decreased from 208 (standard deviation [SD] 139) days in 2007 to 59 (SD 70) days in 2009. CONCLUSION: Patient compliance with a group model of care for hernia surgery is high.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".