Draping in Dermatology: A Physician’s Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patient dignity is a core component of medicine and health care, yet maintaining patient dignity can be challenging in clinical settings in dermatology, specifically during a total body skin examinations (TBSE) for appropriate assessment and diagnosis. A recent study evaluated patient perspectives in dermatology. The purpose of this study was to investigate current draping practices and perspectives from a physicians’ perspective. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed with the use of study-specific questionnaire distributed to staff dermatologists and dermatology residents across Canada. Results A total of 117 physicians were included (84 attending dermatologists and 33 dermatology residents). Nearly all staff and resident dermatologists (90.6%) indicated that draping was important. Specific practices differed between residents and staff ( P = .03). Only 3.1% of residents indicated that they did not receive any form of teaching on draping during their training compared to 21.4% of attending physicians ( P = .03). Discussion This study confirms that draping practices in dermatology are perceived as important by dermatologists, consistent with other reports emphasizing approaches to protect patient privacy and dignity. There is a shared value for draping and consistent integration of this within current practice of Canadian dermatologists. Formal and informal education incorporated in medical education and dermatology training is becoming more prominent. Major study limitations include sampling bias, convenience bias and nonresponse bias. Conclusion This is the first study to evaluate physician perspectives on draping in dermatology or other areas in medicine. Findings from this study support a focus on draping in medical education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".