Assessing interprofessional teamwork in a videoconference-based telerehabilitation setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the workings of a rehabilitation team in a videoconference setting to note the pros and cons of videoconferencing in the development of interprofessional care plans (ICPs). We recorded every videoconference held by the teams of the specialized centre and the regional centre for clients with traumatic brain injuries over an 18-month period. Thirteen recorded videoconferences, lasting for 30-98 min, were analysed through an observation grid. On the whole, efficient teamwork was observed: the mean productivity level was 96%, while the percentage of time dedicated to the resolution of technical issues was 2%. During the videoconferences, the clinical coordinator and the client addressed the group most often. One of the most commonly mentioned advantages was the good visual contact provided by videoconferencing. The most often quoted disadvantage was the poor sound quality. The findings from the study support the adoption of videoconferencing and suggest a few guidelines for the development of ICPs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".