Dissemination of discharge summaries. Not reaching follow-up physicians.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To discover how often hospital discharge summaries were available to physicians seeing patients for follow-up visits after hospitalization. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Teaching hospital in Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: We studied 792 patients discharged from an internal medicine service after treatment for acute illness. We determined when and by which physician each patient was seen during the first 6 months after discharge. We also determined the date each patient's discharge summary was printed and the physicians to whom it was sent. We confirmed that summaries were received by means of a survey or by telephoning physicians' offices. Patients were observed for 6 months or until they were readmitted to hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of follow-up visits to physicians for which discharge summaries were available. RESULTS: During the observation period, patients made 6619 visits (median six per patient, interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 9) to 914 different physicians (median three per patient, IQR 2 to 4). Discharge summaries were available for only 996 (15%) visits. Summaries were available for only 65 initial visits (8.2%); no summaries were available for any visit for 542 (68.4%) patients. Summaries were most commonly unavailable because they were not generated in time for follow-up visits (20.0%) or were not sent to follow-up physicians (50.8%). CONCLUSION: At our institution, discharge summaries often did not get to physicians seeing patients after discharge from hospital.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it