Surgeon – Therapist Communication: Do All Members See Eye-to-Eye?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Poor interprofessional collaboration has been shown to negatively affect patient care within many fields of medicine. Growing evidence is suggesting that improved interprofessional collaboration can positively affect patient care. Postoperative rehabilitation of many orthopedic conditions necessitates the combined efforts of surgeons, and therapists. There is a paucity of literature examining collaboration among orthopedic surgeons and therapists regarding postoperative rehabilitation. Objectives. The following study examines the perceived quality of communications between orthopedic surgeons and therapists employing an online survey. We hypothesized that collaborative practice patterns result in improved perceptions of communication. Methods. Ethics board approval was obtained. Subjects consisted of orthopedic surgeons, licensed physiotherapists and certified athletic therapists. The online survey was distributed through the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA), the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) and the Canadian Athletic Therapists Association (CATA). Data analysis was performed using Stata/IC 12.1 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the median responses and ranges. Median responses were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Qualitative analysis regarding text responses was performed by three reviewers. Results. Reponses were received from all specialties (COA 164, CPA 524, CATA 163). There were significant differences in the perceived quality of communication by quantitative and qualitative analysis (p < 0.001). Analysis of communication within practice patterns of stand-alone versus collaborative revealed improved perception of communication quality with increased contact. 65.6% of responders that practiced as stand-alone had a negative view of interprofessional communication. 48.4% of responders in a collaborative practice had a positive view of interprofessional communication. Analysis of the preferred form of communication found that orthopedic surgeons felt the most useful referral information was a pre-printed consult sheet (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, p < 0.001), whereas therapists were more likely to rank consult notes (OR = 1.27, p < 0.042) and operative reports (OR = 1.20, p < 0.092) as a more useful form of communication. Conclusions. Collaborative practice shows improved perceptions of communication between specialties. Orthopedic surgeons perceive a higher quality of communication than therapists. Therapists and orthopedic surgeons also do not agree on the information that should be relayed between the specialties regarding postoperative rehabilitation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.097 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".