Evaluation of efficiency in the adult cystic fibrosis clinic at the Halifax Infirmary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adult cystic fibrosis clinic in Halifax provides team-based care. Appointments are lengthy with high truancy. Our two-part efficiency study examined clinic flow, appointment length, and identified inefficiencies. A follow-up study was conducted to assess for improvements. Variables included total clinic time for each patient and total time spent alone waiting. Attempts to rectify problems were made after the first study. Outcomes were compared using analysis of variance. We found that patients wait significantly longer on Fridays (p < 0.05), residents did not negatively impact efficiency (p > 0.05), and patients with known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus wait significantly longer (p < 0.05). Patients who arrive earlier wait significantly longer (p < 0.05), while patients who arrive late wait less overall. No significant difference was found after the second study. Despite changing scheduling, procedures and notifying patients, no significant improvements in efficiency were found. Further measures may be required.
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 | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".