Physician ratings of physician assistant competencies and their experiences and satisfaction working with physician assistants: Results from the supervising physician survey in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician Assistants (PAs) are a relatively new addition to the Ontario healthcare system. To understand the impact of the PA role, this study investigated supervising physician satisfaction and perception of PA roles, interprofessional team integration, pandemic supports, and barriers and enablers to PA employment. A web-based survey was conducted of 118 physician supervisors of Ontario PA education program alumni. PAs were employed in a variety of community and hospital settings. In addition to patient care, PAs were involved teaching (65.6%), quality improvement (52.7%), and mentorship (40.0%). Overall, 92.9% of physicians indicated they were satisfied with their PAs. Important barriers to hiring PAs included maintaining PA salaries, billing limitations, and PA shortages. PAs have established themselves as valuable and competent members of healthcare teams. By continuing to explore the enablers and barriers to PA employment from the physician perspective, health leaders can continue to optimize and support role integration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".