Physician and Patient Survey of Taper Schedule and Family Physician Letters Following Discharged from the Acute Pain Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Following discharge, patients requiring high opioid doses may be at risk for both under- and overdosing, posing a major challenge to community physicians. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness and degree of satisfaction with a personalized taper schedule and physician letter through interviews of patients and physicians. METHODS: This was a 1-year prospective study. Following ethics approval and informed written consent, patients admitted for elective surgery, 18 to 60 years of age, receiving opioid analgesics, were recruited. Prior to discharge, the acute pain service team provided patients with a taper schedule explained in detail. Individualized physician letters were faxed to treating family physicians. Patients were contacted by phone 2, 4, and 6 weeks after discharge. Physicians were contacted once, a month after discharge. Patients and physicians were asked to grade the taper schedule on a 1- to 5-point Likert scale. Questions pertained to clarity, usefulness, ability to follow the instructions, and general satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients and 21 physicians completed the study. Physicians were generally satisfied with both the taper schedule and letter and rated all aspects between 3.76 and 4.38 of 5. Similarly, patients were satisfied with the taper schedule and rated all aspects between 4.08 and 4.5. CONCLUSIONS: Both physicians and patients generally found the taper schedule and letter helpful in assisting them to taper off their opioid use. This is one way of bridging the gap in continuity of care between the acute and primary care providers while reducing the risk to patients during the transition period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".