Portrait of the reasons of consultation at a walk-in clinic in Quebec, from a patient perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context In walk-in clinics, physicians have limited time with patients. A consultation preparation sheet (CPS) was developed to help patients better characterize their reason for consulting. Objective To paint a portrait of the patient9s perspective when visiting a walk-in clinic, focusing on the reasons for consulting, concerns, expectations and impact on their lives. Study Design and Analysis Prospective exploratory observational study. Reasons for consultation on the CPS were classified according to the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-3) codes and chapters. Descriptive analyses were performed. Setting Walk-in clinic of an academic family medicine clinic in Quebec, Canada. Population Studied All patients consulting at one walk-in clinic from January to October 2019 were invited to fill the CPS anonymously before seeing the doctor. On a voluntary basis, they could return their CPS. Instrument: The CPS has 17 short and simple questions on patient experience and biomedical aspects of the complaint. Outcome Measures Frequency and ranking of ICPC-3 codes in the CPS. Levels of concern, proportion of previous consultation for the same issue, and description of expectations and impacts on daily living according to the reason for consultation. Results From the 3,115 CPS distributed, 2,645 (85%) were completed and 78% included a reason for consultation; which was mostly described as symptoms (72%) such as fever (13%) and cough (13%). 81% of patients were worried about their symptoms. Average number of patient expectations for their visit was 1.8, the most frequent being to understand their symptoms (56%) and to be relieved (55%). Higher levels of worry were reported for psychological (94%), hematologic (94%) and circulatory (93%) problems. A high proportion (73%) of patients with psychological complaints had consulted previously for that problem. Patients with respiratory, psychological or endocrine problems reported being more affected with regard to their basic needs (eg. sleeping, eating; 70%-77%) vs other needs (walking, exercise; 26%-28%). Conclusions In addition to biomedical aspects, the novelty of the CPS lies in the fact that it allows patients to describe their personal experience with their health problem (eg. concerns, impacts on daily living). Making physicians aware of these experiences could improve patient trust and create stronger therapeutic alliances in the context of walk-in clinics where time with patients is limit.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".