Implementation of Protective Protocols during COVID-19 Pandemic and Older Patients’ Outcomes from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: According to COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University (DCU) implemented the protective protocols across all groups of people, with no specific protocols for the elderly patents. This study aimed to review those protocols and its impact on the older patients’ treatment outcomes in the OMFS clinic, DCU and identify the potential areas for improvement. METHODS: This observational study based on secondary data was conducted using the DCU-COVID-19 protocols and outcome data obtained from the DCU online database from March 26 to May 31, 2020. The descriptive approach was used for data analysis. RESULTS: According to the DCU guidelines, all clinics strictly adhered to standard precautions, all health personnel were required to use personal protective equipment (PPE). Of the 853 older patients who visited the DCU, 35 (4.1%) received urgency or emergency treatments at the OMFS clinic; 19 (54.3%) were females, and 16 (45.7%) were males (mean age, 71.03 years). The most common chief complaint was pain (n = 23; 65.7%). No reports of COVID-19 transmission were received among dental staff and patients in the DCU. Additionally, none of the elderly patients returned to the clinic complaining of recurrence or worsening of symptoms or without a scheduled appointment. CONCLUSIONS: The DCU-COVID-19 protective protocols for all patients, including older patients who attended the OMFS, appear to be appropriate and effective. However, telephone-based recall after surgical treatment at the clinic should be used, particularly for older patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".