Medical Summary Template for the Transfer of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease from Pediatric to Adult Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transfer of information is a key aspect of the transition of adolescent patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from pediatric to adult care. This is typically accomplished through the use of a consultation letter with a medical summary of the patient being transferred. To improve the quality and completeness of information included in a transfer letter, we developed a standardized medical summary template by integrating the feedback of adult and pediatric health care providers. METHODS: To develop the letter template, we purposively sampled gastroenterologists or nurse practitioners caring for patients with IBD in four Canadian cities and invited them to take part in focus group discussions. Using a semi-structured approach, we explored the items deemed essential for inclusion in a transfer summary. Using the conventional content analysis framework, the focus group discussions were inductively coded to identify areas of priority for inclusion in the template. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted, comprising 17 health care providers of 30 invited (56.7% participation). The resulting medical summary template included the following major headings: patient/disease characteristics, therapeutics history (including medications and surgeries), clinical history and current status, noteworthy investigations, history of complications (including hospitalizations), family history, immunization history and psychosocial history. The template also addressed health system process factors (i.e., urgency of transfer, mode of delivery and confidentiality) to ensure a seamless transfer to adult care. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized medical summary template should be used by pediatric providers to ensure that essential patient information and disease characteristics are sent to an adult provider.
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 | 0.018 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".