The challenge of generalist care in remote Australia: Beyond aeromedical retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine clinical service activity amongst patients of the Royal Flying Doctor Service South Eastern Section in Far West New South Wales and to evaluate the management of chronic disease among frequent users of evacuation services. DESIGN: A retrospective audit of the Royal Flying Doctor Service South Eastern Section patient database inclusive of patients within the geographical study area who accessed a clinical or remote consultation, or evacuation service at least once between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2013. Frequent users of evacuation services (≥3 evacuations per year) were investigated through RFDS patient files for determinants of chronic disease management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Category of service accessed, clinical consultation amongst frequent evacuees, determinants of chronic disease management. RESULTS: Total number of evacuees increased by 5.4%; number of remote and clinical consultation patients increased by 5.4%. Of the 47 frequent users of evacuation services, 19 (40%) were infrequent or non-users of clinics (≤3 attendances per year) and 32 (70%) did not have a general practice management plan. Frequent evacuees averaged 2.7 chronic conditions per patient and had seen an average of 16.8 primary care physicians over the 5-year evaluation. CONCLUSION: Most frequent evacuees had several chronic conditions, multiple primary care providers, did not have a general practice management plan and had infrequent clinic reviews. This evidence highlights the challenge of remote primary care and the need to improve systems of chronic disease management. It underlines the importance of current local efforts to improve electronic records, follow-up and team care and to explore further telehealth implementation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".