Physician Assistants as Hospitalists In Canada: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intro: Physician Assistants (PAs) are currently working as hospitalists in Canada, and there is an increasing demand to create more PA hospitalist positions. There is currently little research available on Candian PAs working as hospitalists worldwide. Background: There are various stressors on the Canadian healthcare system, such as fiscally limited resources due to a publicly funded model as well as physician burnout. A possible solution may be the implementation of hospitalist PAs. Methods: Articles examined for this literature review were identified using a PubMed search of the term “physician assistant hospitalist,” through manually searching journals, and an examination of references from relevant papers. Inclusion criteria for articles included primary research, English, PAs as hospitalists. Results: The PubMed search resulted in a total of 114 articles, of which five were relevant, and four articles were discovered through references and manual exploration of journals for a total of nine articles. Discussion: Utilization of PAs speaks to the primary stakeholders in the Canadian healthcare system including the economist, physician, and patient. They provide accountability through a cost-effective, resource-efficient means. Physicians can trust PAs to provide safe, high-quality patient care. These elements contribute positively to fostering the integral trusting relationship between physician and PA. Finally, patients are satisfied with their care by PAs. Conclusion: Based on the data review, PAs are economically efficient, patients are satisfied with care and PAs to provide quality, safe patient care, which allows for a trusting relationship between PA and physician.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.051 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".