A Description of Weekend Physiotherapy Services in Three Tertiary Hospitals in the Greater Toronto Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were (1) to describe the cardiorespiratory physiotherapy weekend service (PWS) at three tertiary hospitals in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and (2) to compare measures of staff burden among the clinical service areas in one of the hospitals that had a programme-based management structure. METHOD: Two focus-group meetings were held with physiotherapists from hospitals within the GTA. Thereafter, variables characterizing the PWS were collected over 8 months, using a standardized data-collection form. RESULTS: A total of 632 data-collection forms were received. Response rates exceeded 75% at each hospital. Workload variables, including the number of patient visits, new referrals per hour, and the proportion of staff completing unpaid overtime, differed between the hospitals (p<0.002). There was no difference in any variable when data were compared between Saturday, Sunday, and statutory holidays (p>0.13). Workload measures varied between clinical service areas at the hospital that provided PWS using a programme-based approach. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the important shortcomings of a programme-based management approach to providing PWS and may constitute a catalyst for change.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".