Perceived Access and Appropriateness: Comparison of Teaching and Resident Family Physicians’ Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Teaching clinics aim to provide patients with care that is comprehensive, high quality, and timely. Since resident presence at the clinic is irregular, timely access to care and continuity remain challenging. The two main objectives of our study were to compare the experience of timely access by patients of family residents vs staff and to determine if there was a difference between resident and staff patients in reported appropriateness and patient-centeredness of the visit. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey study was carried out in nine family medicine teaching clinics part of University of Montreal and McGill University Family Medicine Networks. Patients self-administered two anonymous questionnaires, before and after their consultation. RESULTS: We collected 1,979 preconsultation questionnaires. Teaching physician (staff) patients rated the usual wait time for an appointment as very good or excellent more frequently than resident patients (46% vs 35 %; P=.001). One out of five reported consulting another clinic in the last 12 months. Resident patients consulted elsewhere more often. In postconsultation questionnaires staff patients rated their visit experience better than resident physician patients and patients of second-year residents better than first-year residents. CONCLUSION: Although patients generally have a positive perception of access to care and adequacy of the consultations meet their needs, staff also face the challenge of providing better access to their patients. Finally, we found the patients' perceived visit-based patient centeredness was higher for visits of second-year than first-year resident physicians, supporting the impact of training efforts toward patient-centered best practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".