Physiotherapy Practice and Delegation Policies in Oxygen Administration: A Survey of Ontario Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: As of 2008, the Regulated Health Professions Act in Ontario stipulates that administration of oxygen is a controlled act, which physiotherapists are not authorized to perform but which may be delegated to physiotherapists by another health professional authorized to perform this act. The aims of this study were (1) to survey physiotherapy practice of oxygen administration in Ontario hospitals and (2) to determine the proportion and characteristics of hospitals with delegation policies for physiotherapists to administer oxygen. METHOD: Postal surveys were sent to 208 hospitals. Data were collected on hospital characteristics; the presence of delegation policies; and the practice and training of physiotherapists, physiotherapy assistants, and students in oxygen administration. Data were described by summative statistics. Fisher's exact test and Cramer's V statistic were used to examine associations. Potential prognostic factors were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Response rate was 82.7%. Physiotherapists administered oxygen in 39% of hospitals, and 28% of hospitals had delegation policies. Larger, urban, or teaching hospitals and those with a matrix structure were most likely to have delegation policies and physiotherapists who administered oxygen. Rehabilitation hospitals were also likely to have such policies. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapists administer oxygen in less than half of Ontario hospitals, very few of which have delegation policies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".