An evaluation of wait-times at an interprofessional student-run free clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student-run free clinics (SRFCs) are becoming increasingly popular programmes in schools for promoting interprofessional education and service learning. Despite their prevalence, little research has been done surrounding SRFCs and wait-times. SRFCs may experience long wait-times because patients are often seen on a drop-in basis and time has to be allotted for interprofessional case discussion and teaching. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the wait-times for patients being seen at an interprofessional SRFC and determine potential improvements. Wait-times, total treatment room times, total time per patient, and whether a referral and/or prescription was given were tracked from May 2014 to July 2015 at an SRFC. A total of 268 patients were seen in 52 clinics. On average, five patients were seen per clinic. Patients waited for an average time of 21 minutes before they were seen by the team. Average treatment time per patient was 69 minutes. Patients were generally at the clinic for a total of 91 minutes before being discharged. Several improvements for managing client flow at interprofessional SRFCs are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".