The essential role of nurses in supporting physical examination in telemedicine: Insights from an interaction analysis of postsurgical consultations in orthopedics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telemedicine changes clinical practice and introduces new ways of distributing tasks between physicians and nurses, and particularly the delegation of sensory assessments during remote physical examinations. As nurses become more involved in patient assessment and clinical decision-making, the quality of physician-nurse collaboration has been recognized as essential to ensure quality patient care. However, few studies have examined physician-nurse interactions during teleconsultations. This article presents the results of an empirical study of nurse-physician communication during remote physical examinations. In partnership with a university-affiliated hospital in Ontario, Canada, we observed and recorded 10 simulated postsurgical consultations in orthopedics (involving a physician, a patient, and an on-site nurse) and conducted auto-confrontation interviews with physicians. The results of the thematic analysis of the interviews informed the selection of consultation sequences for in-depth interaction analysis. The findings demonstrate the nurse's essential role during remote physical examinations and reveal specific practices accomplished by the nurse to ensure successful nurse-physician collaboration. The interview data shows how physicians view the nurse's role and contributions. The findings contribute to our understanding of the collaborative nature of sensory assessments during remote physical examinations in telemedicine and can inform the development of training programs for professionals focusing on communication skills. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".