Extended scope physiotherapists in the \nemergency department: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2010 Maney Publishing. Background: Emergency departments (EDs) are one of the main providers of minor injury care in the UK. The use of extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs), independently managing patients from arrival to discharge, has not been widely considered in the UK or internationally. It is possible that ESPs will contribute to the staffing of the twenty-first-century EDs, and their role is gaining momentum in Australia, Canada, and several European counties. Objectives: The aim of the review was to establish the UK and international evidence for clinical effectiveness and cost efficiencies for ESPs independently managing a case load of 'minor injuries' in the ED setting. Methods: A comprehensive review of the published and non-published international literature was undertaken. Results: ESPs are independent professionals with pre-existing skills in the assessment and diagnosis of musculoskeletal injuries. Evidence was only found from UK hospitals regarding the clinical effectiveness and cost efficiencies. ESPs obtain equivalent clinical outcomes compared to the care provided by doctors of all grades, and they are likely to be equivalent in cost, but patients may take longer to return to normal activities when treated by an ESP. ESPs can work to existing ED protocols and achieve significantly higher patient satisfaction than other professional groups, but spend longer with patients. Conclusions: ESPs can provide a high standard of care at an affordable cost, whilst positively influencing patient satisfaction. The use of ESPs working in the ED, carrying out duties traditionally undertaken by doctors, could provide one of the solutions to staffing shortages in emergency care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".