Structure, processes, and initial outcomes of <scp>The Ottawa Hospital Multi‐Specialist Limb‐Preservation Clinic and Programme</scp>: A <scp>unique‐in‐Canada</scp> quality improvement initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2017, The Ottawa Hospital initiated a unique‐in‐Canada quality improvement initiative by opening a novel, multi‐specialist limb‐preservation clinic. We sought to describe the structure, processes, and initial outcomes of the clinic and evaluate whether it is achieving its mandate of providing high‐quality wound clinical care, education, and research. We conducted a descriptive prospective cohort study alongside a nested study of 162 clinic patients requiring serial assessments. There have been 1623 visits, mostly (72.2%) from outpatients. During 17.8% of visits, patients were evaluated by >1 specialist. Therapies provided most often included negative‐pressure wound therapy (32.7%), biological wound dressings (21.6%), and total contact casting (18.5%). Furthermore, 1.2% underwent toe/ray amputations or skin grafting in clinic and 22.8% were initiated on antimicrobials. Mixed‐effects models suggested that mean wound volumes for those requiring serial assessments decreased by 1.6 (95% confidence interval = −0.86 to −2.27) cm 3 between visits. The clinic provided seven rotations to vascular surgery, infectious diseases, dermatology, and palliative care physicians; three nursing preceptorships; and two educational workshops. It also initiated provincial and national vascular health and wound care research initiatives. This study may be used to guide development of other limb‐preservation clinics and programmes. Findings support that our programme is achieving its mandate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".