Patients Are Satisfied with Advanced Practice Physiotherapists in a Role Traditionally Performed by Orthopaedic Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure and compare patient satisfaction with follow-up care in advanced practice physiotherapist (APP) and orthopaedic surgeon clinics for patients following total hip or knee replacement. METHOD: Consecutive patients attending either an APP-led or a surgeon-led review clinic were surveyed using a modified nine-item satisfaction questionnaire based on the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument (VSQ-9). Chi-square analyses were used to examine differences in patient characteristics and type of visit. Independent t-tests were used to examine potential differences in patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 123 participants, more than half were aged 65 years or older. Chi-squared analyses revealed no significant difference in participant characteristics (gender, age, and overall health status) between the two different types of clinics. There was a significant difference (χ(2) (4)=12.49, p=0.014) in the distribution of the timing of follow-up appointments. There was no significant difference between the groups in mean overall patient satisfaction scores on the modified VSQ-9 (p=0.34) nor in the mean of the sum of the seven items related to the service provider (p=0.85). Satisfaction scores for most of the service-provider items were above 90/100. CONCLUSION: Patients are highly satisfied with the care provided by APPs in follow-up clinics after joint replacement. Evaluation of the patient perspective is essential to any new role involving a shift in traditional practice boundaries.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".