Intramural Health Care Through Video Consultations and the Need for Referrals and Hospital Admissions: Retrospective Quantitative Subanalysis of an Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In comparison to the general population, prison inmates are at a higher risk for drug abuse and psychiatric, as well as infectious, diseases. Although intramural health care has to be equivalent to extramural services, prison inmates have less access to primary and secondary care. Furthermore, not every prison is constantly staffed with a physician. Since transportation to the nearest extramural medical facility is often resource-intensive, video consultations may offer cost-effective health care for prison inmates. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify the need for referrals to secondary care services and hospital admissions when video consultations with family physicians and psychiatrists are offered in prison. METHODS: In 5 German prisons, a mixed methods evaluation study was conducted to assess feasibility, acceptance, and reasons for conducting video consultations with family physicians and psychiatrists. This analysis uses quantitative data from these consultations (June 2018 to February 2019) in addition to data from a sixth prison added in January 2019 focusing on referral and admission rates, as well as reasons for encounters. RESULTS: At the initiation of the project, 2499 prisoners were detained in the 6 prisons. A total of 435 video consultations were conducted by 12 physicians (3 female and 7 male family physicians, and 2 male psychiatrists during the study period). The majority were scheduled consultations (341/435, 78%). In 68% (n=294) of all encounters, the patient was asked to consult a physician again if symptoms persisted or got worse. In 26% (n=115), a follow-up appointment with either the video consultant or prison physician was scheduled. A referral to other specialties, most often psychiatry, was necessary in 4% (n=17) of the cases. Only in 2% (n=8) of the consultations, a hospital admission was needed. Usually, hospital admissions were the result of unscheduled consultations, and the videoconferencing system was the method of communication in 88% (n=7) of these cases, while 12% (n=1) were carried out over the phone. Reasons for admissions were severe abdominal pain, hypotension, unstable angina or suspected myocardial infarction, or a suspected schizophrenic episode. CONCLUSIONS: Most scheduled and unscheduled consultations did not require subsequent patient transport to external health care providers. Using telemedicine services allowed a prompt patient-physician encounter with the possibility to refer patients to other specialties or to admit them to a hospital if necessary.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".