A109 LINKING PRIMARY AND SPECIALTY CARE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIGESTIVE HEALTH CONDITIONS: AN EVALUATION OF GUT LINK IMPLEMENTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Severe restrictions on in-person encounters and endoscopic procedures for digestive care have occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This has exacerbated pre-existing barriers in access to gastroenterology (GI) care across Nova Scotia (NS) for patients and primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). In response, a provincial PHCP-GI consultative service (GUT LINK) was implemented at a single tertiary care center with the goal of supporting PHCPs in the management of non-urgent GI referral conditions. Aims To implement and evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and early effectiveness of the GUT LINK PHCP-GI consultation service. Methods This is an ongoing prospective observational cohort study. All referrals received through the EMR-based referral and triage management system between May and November 2020 that were deemed to be amenable to management within primary care with specialist support were returned to the PHCP with the suggestion to arrange a GUT LINK telephone consultation. GUT LINK appointments were scheduled through an administrative support telephone line with the PHCP and a GI specialist. A post-consultation e-questionnaire was distributed to PHCPs who consented to participate. Feasibility (number of and indication for referrals, PHCP participation rates), acceptability and appropriateness (satisfaction, future use, likelihood to recommend) metrics and outcomes (case resolution, re-referrals, proportion requiring endoscopic investigations) were recorded. Patient charts were reviewed to determine whether the patient ultimately required GI speciality care. Analyses were descriptive and expressed as frequencies, means (+/-SD), medians (+/-SE), and proportions (%). Results A total of 45 GUT LINK consultations were completed between May and November 2020. Of these, 20% required GI specialist care and 80% have remained within primary care, with a median follow-up of 101 (+/-9.1) days. The indications for GUT LINK consultation included lower GI symptoms (64%), abnormal imaging or investigations (17%), and upper GI symptoms (19%). To date, 21 PHCP agreed to be contacted for the post-consultation survey and 10 have been completed. All PHCPs reported that GUT LINK consultation was easy to access, while 90% found the advice helpful and 80% reported that that it resolved the issue. Following the GUT LINK appointment, 80% felt they would not need to refer their patient to GI. Conclusions The implementation of GUT LINK was acceptable, feasible, and improved access to specialist support for management of undifferentiated GI symptoms. Future research will focus on comprehensive stakeholder engagement in order to design, implement, and evaluate GUT LINK PHCP care pathways. Funding Agencies CAG
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".