Drop‐In Wound Care: Calgary's Wound Care Model Centred Around People Experiencing Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People experiencing housing insecurities or homelessness face significant barriers to equitable healthcare. A drop-in wound care service was established to mitigate social barriers and improve accessibility. This model facilitates direct access to a multidisciplinary team of trauma-informed medical staff on a walk-in basis. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients seen at the drop-in clinic from January 2021 to December 2021. A total of 119 patients were serviced over 798 visits, with 254 unique wounds managed. 82.8% of patients were living unsheltered, in emergency shelters or in provisional accommodation at the time of assessment. Trauma wounds, lower leg ulcers and frostbites represented the top three complaints. 69.7% of all patients returned to service for at least a second visit, with a median of 4 visits per patient over 42.5 days. Unsheltered patients were most likely to return to service (87.5%) but were most likely to be lost prior to wound closure (68.8%). Timely access to care with consistent follow-up is essential for quality wound care. Our drop-in service presents a working model for providing equitable wound care to socially disadvantaged patient populations. The effectiveness of this model is highlighted by the continual expansion serving 909 and 1029 visits in subsequent years.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".