Evaluation of the impact of restructuring wound management practices in a community care provider in Niagara, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burden of chronic wounds is substantial, and this burden is set to increase as the population ages. The challenge for community health services is significant. Wound care is labour intensive, and demand for services is set to increase at a time when the availability of nursing resources is likely to be severely limited. In March 2005, the Niagara community health care provider implemented a radical reorganisation of wound management practices designed to ensure that available resources, particularly nurse time, were being used in the most efficient way. An evaluation of the impact of the reorganisation has shown improvements in clinical practice and better patient outcomes. The use of traditional wound care products reduced from 75% in 2005 to 20% in 2007 in line with best practice recommendations, and frequency of daily dressing changes reduced from 48% in 2005 to 15% in 2007. In a comparison of patients treated in 2005 and 2006, average time to healing was 51.5 weeks in 2005 compared with 20.9 weeks in 2006. Total treatment cost was lower in 2006 by $10,700 (75%) per patient. Overall, improvements in wound management practice led to a net saving of $3.8 million in the Niagara wound care budget.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".