Multidisciplinary Cleft Palate Program at BC Children’s Hospital: Are We Meeting the Standards of Care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize current Cleft Palate Program (CPP) practices and evaluate the timeliness of appointments with respect to patient age and diagnosis based on American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) population guidelines and CPP patient-specific recommendations. DESIGN: A retrospective review of CPP patient appointments from November 6, 2012, to March 31, 2015, was done. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. SETTING: The study was conducted using data from the CPP at BC Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 1214 appointments were considered in the analysis, including syndromic and nonsyndromic patients of 0 to 27 years of age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients meeting follow-up targets by ACPA standards and CPP team recommendations. RESULTS: < .001). No relationship between the timeliness of an appointment and specific patient diagnoses or distance to clinic was found. With the exception of nursing (97% of appointments were on time), all disciplines had less than 45% of appointments on time with 51% of appointments meeting ACPA guidelines for timeliness and 32% of all appointments meeting CPP recommendations. CONCLUSION: Timely care for the cleft/craniofacial patient populations represents a challenge for the CPP. Although half of patients may meet the general ACPA guidelines, only 32% of patients are meeting the CPP patient-specific recommendations. To provide better patient care, future adjustments are needed, which may include improved resource allotment and program support.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".