The Impact of Introducing a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Trauma Consultation Service to an Academic Level 1 Trauma Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous retrospective studies suggest that early physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) consultation for trauma patients improves outcome and reduces acute care length of stay (LOS). There have not been controlled studies to evaluate this impact. This study assesses the impact of PM&R consultations on acute trauma patients. DESIGN: This study compared measured outcomes before and after the introduction of a PM&R consultation service to the trauma program at a large academic hospital. The primary outcome measure was acute care LOS. RESULTS: The 274 historical controls and 76 patients who received a PM&R consultation were not different in injury severity score, age, or sex. Length of stay was not different between the two groups. However, when early (≤8 days after injury) versus late (>8 days) consults were compared, the early group had a markedly lower LOS (12 vs. 30 days, P < 0.001). When adjusted for injury severity score, an early consult was associated with an 11.8-day lower LOS (P < 0.001). The early consult group also had fewer complications and less usage of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: An acute care PM&R consultation of 8 days or less after admission is associated with a shorter acute care LOS, fewer complications, and less use of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".