O17 Sexual health safeguarding advice line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3></h3> Introduction of a single point of contact (SPOC) safeguarding (SG) advice line for Sexual Health (SH) staff working in a large urban and peri-urban service: 12 months data. Introduction Review indicated that timely access to SG advice could be delayed, and the quality of SG advice given was variable. We introduced a single point of contact (SPOC) safeguarding (SG) advice line for Sexual Health (SH), the aim of enabling direct access to real time, high quality safeguarding advice for all clinic staff. <h3>Methods</h3> January 2021, all SG enquiries were managed via the SPOC, staffed by experienced SG leads during clinic opening times. SG advice calls were logged, recorded and analysed. <h3>Results</h3> The SG SPOC received 400 calls in the first year, increasing from 42 in the first quarter, to 132 in the 4th quarter. Themes of calls received are shown in table 1. Advice calls were received from members of the MDT. Nurses 182 (46%), Doctors 121 (30%), psychology 41 (10%) and admin staff 34 (9%). 85% of calls were between 9:00 – 17:00; calls after 17:00 were found to involve more complex issues. <h3>Discussion</h3> The SPOC was well used, and calls have increased. It has enabled staff access to standardised, expert SG advice in real-time. This has increased access to advice and prompted and supported safeguarding risk assessments, interventions and signposting of patients whilst they are present within our services. Themes of calls are used to tailor training for staff. Opportunistic teaching has improved general SG competence and supplemented formal supervision
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.015 |
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".