The Impact of Suspension of Dermatology On-Call Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermatological conditions are commonly seen in the emergency department and inpatient wards. The ability to access dermatology on-call services improves the accuracy of diagnosis and management of common and sometimes life-threatening conditions. Limitations of dermatologist availability led to the suspension of the dermatology on-call service for 3 months in Ottawa, Canada. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to assess the impact of this call suspension on patient care and the need for a dermatology on-call service at our hospital, as perceived by nondermatologist physicians at our center. METHODS: A survey was sent to all departments at The Ottawa Hospital, addressed to staff physicians and residents. Participation was entirely voluntary. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses. RESULTS: = 13). Over half of the respondents felt that the lack of dermatology on-call service impacted the care of their patients by a moderate or great extent. Over half reported performing dermatology-related clinical work during the call suspension and two-thirds of these individuals reported feeling uncomfortable or very uncomfortable doing so. Most (94%) participants felt that an on-call dermatology service was useful and 57% deemed it essential. CONCLUSION: Our survey results demonstrate a significant impact of the suspension of a dermatology on-call service, as perceived by nondermatologist physicians. Hospitals need to recognize the importance of on-call dermatology consultations and provide support for divisions to enable this service to continue.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".