Effect of family medicine residents on use of diagnostic investigations: in a rural community emergency department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the presence of family medicine residents on the use of laboratory and imaging investigations in a rural emergency department (ED). DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional electronic chart audit was completed. Background characteristics, as well as type and number of ordered investigations, were compared between study groups. SETTING: Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Strathroy, Ont, a rural community hospital that sees approximately 20 000 ED visits per year. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2000 sequential ED visits, including adult and pediatric patients. The test group consisted of patients seen while a resident was present in the ED. The control group consisted of patients seen while no residents were present in the ED. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-two distinct categories of common ED investigations were studied. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between study groups for 19 of the 22 categories of investigations. There were significant differences in 3 categories: an increased number of D-dimer assays for patients seen while there were no residents in the ED (1.7% of patients vs 0.5% of patients, P = .03) and increased computed tomography and ultrasound imaging for patients seen while a resident was in the ED (4.8% vs 1.8%, P = .0012, and 5.3% and 1.7%, P < .001, respectively). These differences are likely not owing to resident involvement but are explained by a difference in test availability between groups. CONCLUSION: The study was underpowered for most categories of studied investigations. However, the trends demonstrated in this study suggest that the presence of family medicine residents in a rural community ED does not substantially affect the overall use of diagnostic investigations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".