Continuing Trauma Care After Discharge, the Experience of Outpatient Trauma Clinics in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recovery process from traumatic injuries, and the potential for complications, extends beyond the time of hospital discharge. In 2014, the Fraser Health Trauma Network established outpatient clinics to provide follow-up care for trauma patients after discharge from hospital. The following research questions were asked: Which services were commonly performed by our trauma clinics and how satisfied were patients with the care they received at our clinics? A survey was distributed to patients after their clinic visit to assess overall satisfaction and areas for improvement. A retrospective medical record review was performed to illustrate and quantify the interventions provided during clinic visits. During the first 22 months of clinic operation, a total of 412 appointments were scheduled and the attendance rate was 88%. The provided services included obtaining additional imaging (41% of visits), providing wound and brace care (16%), and initiating referrals to specialists (12%). Seventy-seven patient satisfaction surveys were returned during the study period, 34 in 2014 and 43 in 2015. Seventy-four percent of respondents strongly agreed, and 21% agreed that they were satisfied with the care they received in the clinic. Ninety percent found their visit helpful, and only 10% reported having additional medical issues that were not addressed during the appointment. At trauma clinic follow-up, discharged patients have ongoing care requirements, including a need for further investigation, specialist referral, and wound or brace issues that are likely to benefit from specialist trauma care. Patients were satisfied with the care provided by a postdischarge trauma clinic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".