Collaboration in caring for psychiatric inpatients: Family physicians team up with psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED: The standard organization of psychiatric inpatient care at our hospital involved consultations with various specialist physicians visiting the psychiatry wards to assess patients' medical needs and to provide appropriate interventions. We thought that this type of clinical care pathway might not be leading to the best integration and timeliness of patient care, the most efficient use of specialist resources, or the least cost to the health care system. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To initiate a protocol that would involve an FP visiting all the psychiatry wards daily (on weekdays) to conduct medical consultations. We hoped this program would improve the timeliness and integration of patient care, reduce patients' length of stay in hospital, and alter the pattern of specialist consultations. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The FP consulted on patients referred by psychiatrists and registered psychiatric nurses; carried out assessments; initiated treatment of commonmedical problems; referred to other specialists when necessary; and made arrangements for follow-up care as appropriate. CONCLUSION: The FP consultations improved patient care in several ways, was highly valued by staff, and modified the pattern of specialist consultations on participatingpsychiatry wards.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".