MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986358964

Physician Assistants as Hospitalists In Canada: A Literature Review : PA Hospitalists

2019· article· en· W6986358964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysician assistantsMEDLINEHospital medicineHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physician Assistants (PAs) are currently working as hospitalists in Canada, and there is an increasing demand to create more PA hospitalist positions.There is currently little research available on Canadian PAs and even fewer research on PAs working as hospitalists worldwide.There are various stressors on the Canadian healthcare system, such as fiscally limited resources due to a publicly funded model as well as physician burnout.A possible solution may be the implementation of hospitalist PAs.Articles examined for this literature review were identified using a PubMed search of the term "physician assistant hospitalist," through manually searching journals, and an examination of references from relevant papers.Inclusion criteria for articles in this review were as follows: primary research, those written in English, focused on PAs, as hospitalists in an inpatient setting.The PubMed search resulted in a total of 114 articles, of which five were relevant, and four articles through references and manual exploration of journals for a total of nine articles.There are several limitations to this review that include generally limited data on PAs, even further limited on PAs in Canada and therefore no Canadian studies that examined PA hospitalists.Additionally, none of the performed were randomized control trials, and all were retrospective chart reviews.PAs stakeholders in the Canadian healthcare system including the economist, physician and patient.They provide accountability through a cost-effective, resource efficient means.Physicians can be pleased by PAs providing safe, high-quality patient care.These elements contribute positively to fostering the integral trusting relationship between physician and PA.Finally, patients are satisfied with their care by PAs.Based on the data review, PAs are economically efficient, patients are satisfied with care and PAs to provide quality, safe patient care, which allows for a trusting relationship between PA and physician.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0320.045
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207