The Impact of Introducing a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Consultation Service to an Academic Burn Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior retrospective studies suggest that physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) acute care consultation improves outcome and reduces acute care length of stay (ACLOS) in trauma patients. There have not been prospective studies to evaluate this impact in burn patients. This cohort study compared outcomes before and after the introduction of a PM&R consultation service to the acute burn program, and the inpatient rehabilitation program, at a large academic hospital. The primary outcome measures were length of stay (LOS) in acute care and during subsequent inpatient rehabilitation. For the acute care phase, there were 194 patients in the preconsultation group and 114 who received a consultation. There was no difference in age, Baux score, or LOS in these patients. For the rehabilitation phase, there were 109 patients in the prephysiatrist group and 104 who received PM&R care. The LOS was significantly shorter in the latter group (24 days vs 30 days, P = .002). Functional independence measure (FIM) change, unexpected readmission, and discharge destination were not significantly different. The addition of a burn physiatrist did not influence ACLOS. However, there was a significant reduction in inpatient rehabilitation LOS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".