Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue of Academic Medicine, Webster and colleagues explore the impact of a government-imposed mandate in Ontario, Canada, to limit the length of time patients can stay in the emergency department. The rule is aimed at emergency department crowding, which has been shown to result in poorer-quality care, longer hospital stays, and higher mortality. Webster and colleagues found that learners were concerned about the effect of a time target on both their education and on patient-centered care, and sensed a "hidden curriculum" refocusing teaching on "efficiency rather than safe, compassionate care."The introduction of time targets in emergency departments may seem like a threat to both the education of learners and the quality of patient care. However, one aspect of quality is patient-centered care, which requires sensitivity to patients' need for information, physical comfort, and reassurance. In this Commentary, the author describes the patient experience in the typical teaching hospital emergency department, arguing that for too long, teaching institutions have given only lip service to patient-centered care in favor of traditional teaching models. It is time to rebalance the scales so that the patient's experience is a central feature of the curriculum, and putting a time limit on how long patients stay in the emergency department may be one way to do it.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".