Opinion Survey Regarding Pediatric Orthopaedic Trauma Call and Emergency Trauma Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the attitudes and practices of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons regarding on-call coverage and emergency fracture management. METHODS: A 32-question online survey was sent to all 597 active members of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America. There were 296 completed surveys, for a response rate of 49.6%. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 85.1% were male. The respondents ranged in age from 30 to older than 70 years, with 54% between 36 and 50 years of age, corresponding to an average of 15 years in practice. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents felt that taking trauma call is an integral aspect of being a pediatric orthopaedist. Of the respondents, 64.9% take call 1 to 9 times per month, 15.8% take 10 to 19 calls, 2.7% take 20 or more, and 16.6% take no call. The number of orthopaedists taking call per practice was fairly evenly distributed between 3 and 10. Call was shared equally in 32% of practices, and mandatory in 72%. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents were additionally compensated for taking calls, in amounts ranging from $100 to $2000 per night, with 1000 dollars the most common rate. One third of operative cases are done that night; one third, the next day; and one third, later in the week. Twenty-four percent of the respondents have dedicated operative block time on the day after the call. Forty-seven percent have a dedicated fracture clinic, of which 51% receive institutional support. CONCLUSIONS: Providing emergency trauma care for children is an integral aspect of pediatric orthopaedics. This survey provides information on the attitudes and strategies of practicing pediatric orthopaedic surgeons in the face of decreasing manpower and increasing demand for such services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".