MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1689851159 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2775

15. Meeting challenges in the delivery of surgical care

2007· article· en· W1689851159 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Leif Sigurdson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageMedicineProductivityOperations managementWork (physics)Medical emergencySurgeryEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian surgeons are faced with looming demographic challenges. Shortages in surgical manpower cannot be addressed expediently due to 14-year university requirements. A potential solution is to increase the efficiency of surgeons already in practice. Physician assistants (PA’s), may play a role in this regard by allowing surgeons to concentrate on their core competency, namely operating. The purposes of this investigation are to explore the inefficiencies in a current Canadian surgeon’s practice, examine the feasibility of PA employment and evaluate the financial impacts. The study was performed in 3 parts. In part 1, operating room plastic surgery Surgiserver® data for 10 years leading up to 2005 were analyzed to determine daily operating time actually used. In part 2, 4 months of detailed time series data were captured prospectively for every patient care event. The data was analyzed using SPSS (ver. 11.5) to determine the percentage and types of events that could be delegated to a PA. In part 3, PA hiring scenarios were developed using formal business case analyses. Over 3,635 days, mean operating time used in a 10-hour surgical day was 5.93 hours. Of the 806 patients seen in 13 clinics, 53.5% could have been cared for by a PA. In the minor procedure area, 48.8 % of surgical time was spent performing non-essential, PA compatible work. In the main OR, 25.9% of surgical time was PA compatible. Considering the weekly mix of activities, a PA could increase surgical productivity by 36.7%. Hiring a PA was neutrally cost effective at the 37% productivity increase level. However, much greater discounted incremental cash flows, internal rates of return (IRR) and return on investments (ROI) were achieved when PA hiring allowed one surgeon to run 2 OR’s simultaneously. Employing PA’s, in conjunction with increasing OR capacity, have the potential to markedly increase the capability of surgeons to deal with lengthy wait lists in a cost effective manner. McKibbin RC. Cost-effectiveness of physician assistants: A review of recent evidence. Pa J 1978; 8(2):110-115. Maxfield RG. Use of physician's assistants in a general surgical practice. Am J Surg 1978; 131(4):504-508. Kaissi A, Kralewski J, Dowd B. Financial and organizational factors affecting the employment of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in medical group practices. J Ambul Care Manage 2003; 26(3):209-216.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.008

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.107 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207