Improving access to specialists in remote communities: a cross-sectional study and cost analysis of the use of eConsult in Nunavut
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation) service facilitates asynchronous communication between primary care providers (PCP) and specialists. The service was extended to several PCPs in Nunavut in 2014. OBJECTIVE: To (1) describe the use of eConsult services in Nunavut, and (2) conduct a costing evaluation. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study and cost analysis of all eConsult cases submitted between August 2014 and April 2016. RESULTS: PCPs from Nunavut submitted 165 eConsult cases. The most popular specialties were dermatology (16%), cardiology (8%), endocrinology (7%), otolaryngology (7%), and obstetrics/gynaecology (7%). Specialists provided a response in a median of 0.9 days (IQR=0.3-3.0, range=0.01-15.02). In 35% of cases, PCPs were able to avoid the face-to-face specialist visits they had originally planned for their patients. Total savings associated with eConsult in Nunavut are estimated at $180,552.73 or $1,100.93 per eConsult. CONCLUSIONS: The eConsult service provided patients in Nunavut's remote communities with prompt access to specialist advice. The service's chief advantage in Canada's northern communities is its ability to offer electronic access to a breadth of specialties far greater than could be supported locally. Our findings suggest that a territory-wide adoption of eConsult would generate enormous savings.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it