Real world patient-reported and health care professional-perceived pain severity in outpatient fracture clinic procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Management of orthopaedic fractures involves acute intervention and follow up through to recovery. Patient-centered care needs to encompass all aspects of this treatment. Limited research is available on outpatient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes from fracture clinic (FRCL). The purpose of this evaluation is to report on pain levels perceived by patients from minor orthopaedic procedures that were necessary for the continued management of fracture care. Methods Patients were recruited in the FRCL if they were planned to undergo minor orthopaedic procedures. They were asked to report the pain they experienced at baseline, during the procedure, 20 min post-procedure, and 24 h following the procedure on a verbal numeric rating scale of 0–10. Healthcare professionals (HCP) were then asked to rank their perception of the severity of pain from each procedure type. Finally, qualitative interviews were conducted on a convenience sample of patients. Results 51 patients were included in this evaluation. Halo pin, external fixation device, Kirschner wire, and screw removal exhibited a mean increase in pain from baseline greater than 3 units during the procedure. The external fixation device removal group showed the greatest pain reported with a statistically significant increase from baseline to the end of the procedure (mean = 7.1; p = 0.002). There was good concordance of pain perception by the HCP to patient experience. Qualitative interviewing revealed two major themes. Discussion This study provided valuable qualitative and quantitative insight into the pain perceptions by FRCL patients. This data may help improve the patient experience inside the FRCL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".