High Patient Satisfaction with Examination by Advanced Practice Physiotherapists in an Orthopaedic Outpatient Shoulder Clinic: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate patients’ satisfaction with being examined and diagnosed in an orthopaedic outpatient shoulder clinic, determine whether a difference exists between levels of satisfaction among patients examined by advanced practice physiotherapists (APPs) and orthopaedic surgeons (OSs), and explore patients’ experiences with being examined by APPs. Method: One hundred and thirty-three patients participated in a cross-sectional questionnaire study using the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument (VSQ-9). Primary outcome was satisfaction with “The visit overall” (item 9). Nine patients participated in semi-structured interviews, which were thematically analyzed. Results:There was no significant difference in satisfaction with “The visit overall” between patients examined by an OS (median: 75, 1st–3rd quartiles: 75–100) and an APP (median: 100, 1st–3rd quartiles: 75–100). The VSQ-9 total score was not significantly different between groups, but some items regarding direct interaction with the health provider were scored significantly higher in the APP group. Patients were particularly satisfied with APPs’ ability to explain during the consultation. Conclusions: The results showed high levels of satisfaction with examinations performed by both OSs and APPs with no difference between groups concerning “The visit overall.” From a patient perspective, the results support the use of APPs to examine and diagnose selected patients in an orthopaedic outpatient shoulder clinic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".