A quantitative day in the life of a Saskatchewan rural physician.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rural family physicians are often required to meet a wide variety of medical service demands that are otherwise the responsibility of specialty physicians in urban centres. However, many rural physicians enjoy the practice variety and ability to meet patients' medical needs through this wider spectrum of care. We aimed to quantify and summarize the workload and clinical disorders seen by rural family physicians in Saskatchewan relative to urban family physicians. METHODS: We used Saskatchewan Ministry of Health billing data for 2015/16 to compare rural and urban care provision. The data were summarized in a graphic 1-month format to portray a typical month in the life of a rural physician in the province. RESULTS: In the office setting, rural family physicians saw 16.8% more cardiac presentations in adults over 65 years of age than did urban family physicians; otherwise, there were no significant differences in the top office diagnosis categories seen by the 2 groups. Differences were apparent, however, in the hospital setting: urban family physicians saw more patients presenting with pain and, reflective of centralization of obstetric delivery services, performed more deliveries than did rural physicians. CONCLUSION: There are differences in the clinical presentations seen by rural and urban family physicians, and these need to be considered by new physicians considering rural practice. Our simple visual depiction of average workload, vacation and activity levels of rural physicians can further inform medical residents on the realities of working in rural Saskatchewan as a family physician. A more complete understanding of clinical workload expectations may promote recruitment of resident physicians.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".