Perspectives of Champlain BASE Specialist Physicians: Their Motivation, Experiences and Recommendations for Providing eConsultations to Primary Care Providers
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
Electronic consultation can improve access to specialist care. However, specialists have been identified as less likely to adopt electronic solutions in clinical settings. We conducted an online survey to explore the perspectives of specialists who use the Champlain BASE eConsult service in Eastern Ontario, Canada. Specialists were asked their opinions on experience with the service, their current consult/referral practices, recommendations for change and expansion of the service, and compensation models. We tabulated descriptive statistics from the multiple choice and Likert scale responses and performed a content analysis with an emergent code strategy for open-text responses. Specialists (n=34, 77% response rate) agreed that the Champlain BASE eConsult service is a feasible way to improve access to specialist care (94%), improves communication between specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) (94%), has educational value for PCPs (91%), and is user friendly (82%). A majority of specialists (88%) felt the service should be expanded provincially and 67% felt it should allow specialist-to-specialist consultation. 88% of specialists agreed that the current compensation process is best. This study provides an in-depth look at the perspective of the specialist physicians who use the Champlain BASE eConsult service. Specialists stated specific recommendations for change that will allow us to ensure the service remains sustainable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it