ADHERENCE OF PHYSICIANS PRACTICE TONATIONAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MOH) URGENT CARE GUIDELINE IN EASTERN REGION,SAUDI ARABIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In the new era of the Ministry of health transformation, urgent care units (UCCs) were established in primary care. This research evaluated the current practice at the urgent care unit in comparison to the MOH Guideline of Extended Hour Services. Materials and Methods: This is an analytical cross-sectional study that included 293 physicians who worked in UCCs at Primary health care (PHC), Saudi Arabia (SA). The data were collected via a validated online questionnaire distributed to the physicians. Furthermore, UCCs were visited to assess the availability of suitable settings. Univariate and multivariate data analyses were done using the SPSS program. Results: Less than a quarter (23.6%) of UCC physicians were aware of the presence of the National MOH Guideline of extended-hour services. Overall adherence as per physicians perception of the guideline was 48 (24.7%). Increased adherence to Ministry of Health policy as per guidelines by UCC physicians was associated with attending all training courses (OR = 33.72, 95% CI: 2.116-4.920) and awareness of the MOH manual of extended hours services (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 0.345-1.435). Participants agree on the absence of a clear referral policy to an emergency department and outpatient clinics, 32.3% and 52.3% respectively. Conclusion: UCC physicians training and practices at PHCs did not adequately adhere to the Ministry of Health guidelines. More effort is needed to achieve better outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".