The Utility and Efficiency of a Resident Hand Clinic for the Management of Acute Hand Trauma at the University of Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The University of Alberta established a resident-run hand clinic in 2005 to expeditiously manage the growing numbers of patients with traumatic hand injuries. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical volume and types of cases assessed and treated in the clinic, as well as gauge patient satisfaction with care received.Methods:A retrospective chart review and patient satisfaction questionnaire were conducted for patients assessed in the hand clinic in 2015. Demographic data, referral data, and treatment required were recorded. Patients were asked to complete a survey on their experience at the end of their visit.Results:A total of 1022 charts were reviewed. The most common reason for referral was a fracture or dislocation (57%), followed by tendon injury (18%). The average wait time to be seen in clinic was 2.97 ± 2.13 days in the winter and 4.12 ± 2.14 days in the summer. Forty-seven percent of patients required splinting, 17% required a procedure, and 21% of patients were referred for surgery. Patient satisfaction on average was 9.29 ± 0.87 on a satisfaction scale of 10.Conclusion:In a 6-month period, residents attending hand clinic assessed and treated 1022 patients, providing timely management of acute injuries. A resident-run hand clinic is an effective model to decrease wait times for patients, to decrease time spent assessing nonemergent injuries in the emergency department, and to concentrate hand trauma in a setting conducive to resident training, while still maintaining high patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".