IMPACT OF CLINICAL COMMUNICATION SUMMARY REPORT ON INJURED WORKERS’ SATISFACTION FOLLOWING ROTATOR CUFF SURGERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the this survey study was twofold: 1) to examine different aspects of satisfaction with post-operative care in injured workers who have undergone rotator cuff surgery and 2) to examine the relationship between receiving a newly implemented summary report and the overall satisfaction with surgery and recovery. The clinical communication summary report was given to injured workers following their review assessment to share with the family doctor or other health care providers. The form indicated a need for further assessments or investigations and return to work recommendations. The study involved using a satisfaction survey that examined different aspects of follow-up visit and workers’ opinion about their understanding of the nature of surgery, their progress, clinical management, and usefulness of the newly implemented summery report. Eighty patients completed the questionnaire (mean age: 54 (8), 62(78%) males, of whom 26 (34%) had a rotator cuff decompression and 31 (40%) had a rotator cuff repair with 20 (26%) having both procedures and three missing data. There were no statistically significant relationships between the patient demographics (age, sex or type of surgery) and satisfaction. However, there was a significant correlation between how patients perceived the summary report in terms of helpfulness and the overall satisfaction with surgery (FTE<0.0004, p=0.001) and the satisfaction with recovery (FTE<0.0001, p=0.001). This may indicate that improvement in worker's understanding of their treatment recommendations and restrictions is associated with higher levels of overall satisfaction in this population. Our results indicate a positive linear relationship between expressing a high satisfaction and the helpfulness of the summary report. As part of improving care, adding a summary report may facilitate sharing information with the injured workers, their care providers and their workplace.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".