Accompanied consultations in occupational health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accompanied consultations are often reported as difficult by occupational physicians but have not been studied in the occupational health setting. AIMS: To collect information about accompanied consultations and the impact of the companion on the consultation. METHODS: We collected data on all accompanied consultations by two occupational physicians working in a private sector occupational health service over the course of 16 months. Accompanied consultations were matched to non-accompanied consultations for comparison. RESULTS: We collected data on 108 accompanied consultations. Accompanied consultations were more likely to be connected with ill health retirement (P < 0.01), have a neurological diagnosis or multiple diagnoses (P < 0.01), be rated as complex (P < 0.01) and take longer than 30 minutes (P < 0.01) than non-accompanied consultations. Over half of the companions (54%) were a spouse or partner. An impact by the companion was recorded in 81% of consultations but this was most frequently that they had provided information (56%) and in over a quarter the impact was recorded as helpful. Interruptions were recorded in 28% of accompanied consultations but only 6% of consultations had free text suggesting that the consultation or companion was difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Accompanied consultations are likely to be more challenging in terms of the reason for referral, the presenting medical problems, the complexity of the case and the duration of the consultation. However, the companion is more likely to be of benefit than cause difficulty. Occupational health practitioners may benefit from better understanding of accompanied consultations and guidance on their management.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".