Integration of virtual physician visits into a provincial 8-1-1 health information telephone service during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study of HealthLink BC Emergency iDoctor-in-assistance (HEiDi)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: British Columbia, like many jurisdictions, has a health information telephone service (8-1-1) to provide callers with information by registered nurses and help them decide whether to attend an emergency department or primary care clinic, or manage their concern at home. We describe a new service, HealthLink BC Emergency iDoctor-in-assistance (HEiDi), that partnered physicians available by videoconferencing with 8-1-1 registered nurses to support callers. METHODS: From Apr. 6 to Aug. 2, 2020, all callers to the 8-1-1 telephone service (available to anyone in BC) categorized as "seek care within 24 hours" by registered nurses were eligible for referral to HEiDi. HEiDi physicians ("virtual physicians") connected directly with callers via desktop videoconferencing software, assessed their health complaint, provided advice and suggested care disposition. We conducted a descriptive study and collected demographic characteristics, health concern and disposition determined by the virtual physician. RESULTS: = 874, 11.4%). From the 7531 calls with available data, 2548 (33.8%) callers were advised to attempt home treatment, 2885 (38.3%) to contact a primary care physician within 1 week, 1131 (15.0%) to attend an emergency department immediately and 538 (7.1%) to attend their primary provider now. INTERPRETATION: We found that virtual physicians were able to advise nearly 3 out of 4 (72.1%) patients away from in-person emergency or clinic assessment and 1 in 7 (15.0%) to seek immediate emergency department care. Virtual physicians can provide an effective complement to a provincial health telephone system.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".