MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220958431 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afac037.660

660 PHYSIOTHERAPISTS PERCEPTIONS OF MECHANISMS FOR OBSERVED VARIATION IN PRACTICE DURING EARLY POSTOPERATIVE PHASE AFTER HIP FRACTURE

2022· article· en· W4220958431 on OpenAlexaff
Brittannia Volkmer, Euan Sadler, K. Lambe, F C Martin, Salma Ayis, Lauren A Beaupré, ID Cameron, Celia L. Gregson, Antony Johansen, Mattias Kristensen, Jay Magaziner, Catherine Sackley, TO Smith, Boris Sobolev

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuditMultidisciplinary approachThematic analysisWorkloadStaffingNursingClinical auditMultidisciplinary teamQualitative researchPerceptionSkill mixHealth carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To explore physiotherapists’ perceptions of mechanisms to explain observed variation in early postoperative practice after hip fracture surgery demonstrated in a national audit. Methods A qualitative semi-structured interview study of 21 physiotherapists working on orthopaedic wards at 7 hospitals with different durations of physiotherapy during a recent audit. Thematic analysis of interviews drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to aid interpretation of findings. Results Four themes were identified: achieving protocolised and personalised care; patient and carer engagement; multidisciplinary team engagement across the care continuum; and strategies for service improvement. Most expressed variation from protocol was legitimate when driven by what is deemed clinically appropriate for a given patient. This tailored approach was deemed essential to optimise patient and carer engagement. Participants reported inconsistent degrees of engagement from the multidisciplinary team attributing this to competing workload priorities, interpreting ‘postoperative physiotherapy’ as a single professional activity rather than a care delivery approach, plus lack of integration between hospital and community care. All participants recognised changes needed at both structural and process levels to improve their services. Conclusion Physiotherapists highlighted an inherent conflict between their intention to deliver protocolised care while allowing for an individual patient-tailored approach. This conflict has implications for how audit results should be interpreted, how future clinical guidelines are written, and how physiotherapists are trained. Physiotherapists also described additional factors explaining variation in practice which may be addressed through increased engagement of the multidisciplinary team and resources for additional staffing and advanced clinical roles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207