An Audit of the Appropriateness of Teletriage Nursing Advice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the appropriateness of advice given by teletriage nurses to patients in northern Ontario. Assessments used audiotapes and printed records of 73 calls, selected from approximately 350 calls based on sound quality, completeness, and consent of caller and teletriage nurse. Audits were conducted independently by one family physician, one nurse practitioner, and one registered nurse with teletriage experience. In 56% of the 73 calls, all three auditors judged the nurse's advice as "appropriate." In 92% of the 73 calls, at least two of the three auditors judged the teletriage nurse's advice as "appropriate." All calls were rated as "appropriate" by at least one auditor. If not "appropriate," then auditors were three times more likely to rate the advice as "overly-cautious" rather than "insufficient." The percentage of calls with the same rating varied from 62% to 86% with an outlier of 33%. Nurse practitioners tended to rate the appropriateness of the advice slightly, but significantly lower than the rating given by family physicians or registered nurses. Interestingly, nurse practitioners tended to rate aspects of the nurse-caller interaction advice as slightly and significantly better than the rating chosen by family physicians or registered nurses. The teletriage service was providing appropriate advice, but the generalizability of these results may be limited because of the selection of calls.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".