The Provision of Weekend Physiotherapy Services in Tertiary-Care Hospitals in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the provision of weekend physiotherapy (PT) services in tertiary-care hospitals in Canada. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted across tertiary-care hospitals, defined as those with university affiliation and at least one intensive care unit (ICU). Data were collected via telephone-administered questionnaires addressing hospital demographics, weekend staffing, workload, and weekend referral criteria. RESULTS: A response rate of 84% (n=36) was obtained. Of facilities providing weekend PT services (97%), 35 (100%) provided care on Saturdays, 32 (91%) on Sundays, and 33 (94%) on statutory holidays. Weekend services were staffed using permanent full-time (n=35; 100%) or part-time (n=28; 80%) in-patient staff or outsourced staff (n=1; 3%). The number of physiotherapists available on the weekend was smaller than the number available during the week (p<0.001). Common weekend referral criteria included cardiorespiratory problems (n=35; 100%), postoperative assessment of patients at risk for deterioration (n=32; 91%), and patients scheduled for discharge pending PT assessment (n=30; 86%). CONCLUSION: Both the scope and the number of staff available to provide PT services were less on the weekend than during the week. Despite the use of common criteria for weekend referral, variability in this service exists. Knowledge pertaining to current weekend PT services provides opportunities for harmonization of service delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".