A Multifaceted Strategy for Implementation of the Ottawa Ankles Rules in Two Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem Despite widespread acceptance of the Ottawa ankle rules for assessment of acute ankle injuries, their application varies considerably.\n\nDesign Before and after study.\n\nBackground and setting Emergency departments of a tertiary teaching hospital and a community hospital in Australia.\n\nKey measures for improvement Documentation of the Ottawa ankle rules, proportion of patients referred for radiography, proportion of radiographs showing a fracture.\n\nStrategies for change Education, a problem specific radiography request form, reminders, audit and feedback, and using radiographers as “gatekeepers.”\n\nEffects of change Documentation of the Ottawa ankle rules improved from 57.5% to 94.7% at the tertiary hospital, and 51.6% to 80.8% at the community hospital (P<0.001 for both). The proportion of patients undergoing radiography fell from 95.8% to 87.2% at the tertiary hospital, and from 91.4% to 78.9% at the community hospital (P<0.001 for both). The proportion of radiographs showing a fracture increased from 20.4% to 27.1% at the tertiary hospital (P=0.069), and 15.2% to 27.2% (P=0.002) at the community hospital. The missed fracture rate increased from 0% to 2.9% at the tertiary hospital and from 0% to 1.6% at the community hospital compared with baseline (P=0.783 and P=0.747).\n\nLessons learnt Assessment of case note documentation has limitations. Clinician groups seem to differ in their capacity and willingness to change their practice. A multifaceted change strategy including a problem specific radiography request form can improve the selection of patients for radiography.
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 | 0.075 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".