Evaluation of a novel strategy of triage in the haematology ambulatory care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2010, wait-times for new patients referred to see a haematologist at our outpatient tertiary care centre clinic exceeded 6 months. The provision of written recommendations for a subset of referred patients was undertaken to reduce patient wait-times. These recommendation letters outlined possible causes of the abnormality for which the patient was being referred and suggested a course of action for follow-up, and patients were then managed by their referring practitioner. We sought to characterize the cohort of patients for whom written recommendations were written and assess whether written recommendations were a satisfactory alternative for the referring practitioner. METHODS: All haematology patient referrals managed with written recommendations in 2010 were included in the study and were assessed one year later. Referring practitioners who received written recommendations were sent a short survey to evaluate their satisfaction with this process. RESULTS: A total of 444 of 2400 referrals were managed with a letter. At 1-year follow-up, 58 (13%, 95% CI) of the abnormalities which prompted the referral had resolved and 201 (45%, 95%CI) had remained stable. There was a single haematology-related death during the 1-year follow-up and the haematological abnormality worsened in 4 (1%) patients. Of 203 (71%) referring practitioners who responded to the satisfaction survey, 90% (95% CI) indicated that they would be satisfied with written recommendations in the future. INTERPRETATION: The provision of written recommendations appears to be a safe and satisfactory alternative to an inperson outpatient assessment in certain well-defined subsets of stable outpatients with haematologic abnormalities.
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 | 0.085 | 0.083 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".