Fast‐track recovery after day case surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fast-track recovery processes are implemented for pediatric day case surgery. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate postoperative comfort and parental satisfaction of children included in this process to improve quality of care. METHODS: We included all children scheduled for superficial procedures or dental treatment outside the operating room. A questionnaire was explained to parents before hospital discharge to evaluate the first night at home. Postoperative comfort evaluation included postoperative pain score (FLACC scale), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative behavior disorders. Incidence of posthospital behavior disturbance was evaluated measuring postoperative agitation at home, and disinterest with toys and games. Parental satisfaction was evaluated with a four-point Likert scale (1 = not satisfied at all, 2 = not satisfied, 3 = satisfied, 4 = very satisfied). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three questionnaires were returned to hospital. Despite reduced length of stay in short-stay unit after anesthesia (28 ± 34 min), we did not report serious complications, and global parental satisfaction was good about the care process. Pain scores (FLACC >3) were higher in the group scheduled for dental procedures, but were very low for the other superficial surgery. With an odd ratio of 5.8 (95% confidence interval 2-17; P = 0.001), postoperative behavior modification (agitation or disinterest with toys or games) was the strongest variable that can predict parental dissatisfaction. CONCLUSION: Optimal pain management, better parental information about risks of postoperative behavior disturbances, and program integrating parent and child preparation should improve quality of care and global satisfaction in the fast-track recovery process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".